Sitting of 25 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Welsh Assembly
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
9.35 am
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I very much welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the Government's proposals for Welsh devolution, as outlined in our White Paper published earlier this week, "A Voice for Wales". I trust that hon. Members have now had an opportunity to read it, so I do not intend to take up the time of the House either by summarising our detailed proposals or by repeating the general points that I made last Tuesday. There are, however, some very important issues with which I want to deal as an introduction to the debate.
This is a new Government, who have an agenda for change. At the general election, we promised the electorate a new approach to government and we put constitutional change at the heart of our programme. We did so because we believed that the excessive over-centralisation of the British state, after 18 years of rule by the Conservative party, had led to bad government and a weakened democracy. It has produced sleaze and incompetence in equal measure, and damaged the social fabric of our country.
We want to make a fresh start. We are committed to decentralising power and to extending the rights of individuals, rather than constraining them. We want to modernise procedures in this House and reform the composition of the House of Lords. The country voted for change on 1 May. We promised to modernise our democracy, and we will deliver on our promises.
Devolution to Wales is, of course, nothing new. Throughout this century there has been a developing programme of administrative devolution, which was reinforced by the establishment of the Welsh Office in the 1960s. It is interesting to note that the Conservative party opposed each significant stage of devolution, as well as the creation of bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency. To its credit, however, the Tory party has realised its errors, and is now reconciled to the process of administrative devolution. Indeed, by its actions over the years since 1979, it has in part accelerated the process—but it still seems to have difficulty with the concept of democracy.
Mr. Piers Merchant: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party had opposed
1124
devolution at each stage. Will he confirm that the Welsh people, when they were last given the opportunity, roundly opposed devolution?
Mr. Davies: That is a matter of fact. No one can dispute that the 1979 referendum produced a no vote. However, it is not a novel idea that people should change their minds, especially when they lose elections. I would have thought that that message is one that the Conservative party would take to heart. The circumstances of this country have profoundly changed since 1979, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable that we should now ask the people again.
As Secretary of State, I have sweeping powers, and a budget of some £7 billion. So did my immediate predecessors. Devolution allows for variations of policy. Indeed, devolution is there precisely to allow variations of policy to reflect local circumstances, local priorities and local aspirations.
However, my immediate predecessors exercised their powers to suit their own interests and ideologies—for example, the restrictions on the budget of the WDA; the restriction on the promotion of Welsh economic interests in Europe; the assault on the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales; the forced council tax increases; the nursery voucher scheme; grant-maintained schools; the popular schools initiative; and the appointment of cronies to quangos—none of which would have happened under a democratic form of devolution.
The right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and the former Members David Hunt and Peter Walker, used the Welsh Office to promote themselves, not the best interests of Wales.
The existing constitutional arrangements allow us as Welsh Members neither to take the decisions ourselves nor to challenge the decision makers. It is a myth to claim that the right hon. Members for Wokingham and for Richmond, Yorks were held accountable in this Parliament for their actions in Wales.
We propose to legitimise that undemocratic and unaccountable regime with a new democracy, with an Assembly directly elected by and answerable to the people of Wales, sensitive to Welsh needs as expressed through the ballot box rather than to an alien ideology expressed through an over-centralised Government with an attendant flotilla of quangos. There has long been scope for Wales to do its own thing, but we have seen where that can lead when that desire for diversity is not in tune with local values.
I shall put our Assembly proposals in the overall context of the governance of the United Kingdom. Wales will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Parliament will make primary legislation for Wales. The Secretary of State will remain a member of the Cabinet, and Welsh Members will be in the House of Commons, in full force. The Assembly will be able to make its views known and contribute effectively to public debate as well. These proposals add to Wales's opportunities to gain a hearing in the United Kingdom, not reduce them. The charge that Wales will be marginalised or sidelined is simply wrong.
The fact that the Secretary of State for Wales will no longer have to make decisions on important but essentially local issues, such as planning matters,

1125
appointments and road schemes, will free him or her to make a more effective contribution on behalf of Wales at a strategic level.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not true that Welsh Members were elected to make decisions about housing and education, for example? If the Government's proposals were to go through, those elected to this place to represent Wales would be marginalised, in the sense that they would no longer have a say when it came to vital decisions on housing and education, which the Welsh people sent them to Westminster to decide upon.
Mr. Davies: In part, the theory may be correct that Welsh Members are elected to take decisions on matters such as housing. Our experience over the past two decades, however, is that we, Welsh Members, do not take such decisions, and that is the problem. Decisions relating to the administration of housing, economic development, education and the health service in Wales are not taken by Welsh Members.
Primary legislation passes through the House, and we are involved in that legislative process. That is true of the past, in the sense that we were opposing proposed legislation. Administration and detailed application of policies in Wales, however, has never been carried out in accordance with the direct wishes of the people of Wales.
I shall give the House what I consider to be the best and clearest example, which is nursery vouchers. The voucher scheme was imposed on Wales. There was no public support for it in Wales. We knew that it would be wasteful, divisive and bureaucratic. It was opposed by 32 out of 38 Welsh Members and by every local authority in Wales.
There were petitions and letters in their thousands—I understand nearly 5,000—in opposition to the scheme. There was no support for it but it was introduced. It was forced on us in Wales, and it was wasteful, expensive and bureaucratic. There was enormous relief when—it was one of the first actions of the incoming Labour Government—we were able to get rid of the scheme.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Davies: I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I want to make my remarks as brief as possible, but I have a case to put to the House. It would not help the debate if, at this stage, the House were detracted from the main principles that I want to develop.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I have taken two interventions from Opposition Members, so I shall gladly take an intervention now from my hon. Friend, who I know will
1126
be anxious to support me on these matters. My hon. Friend having intervened, I should like to proceed and to make a little progress.
Mr. Rogers: My right hon. Friend has said several times that he wants to have a balanced view. Does he accept that every Labour authority in England—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: And in Scotland.
Mr. Rogers:—and in Scotland—opposed nursery vouchers, and that opposition to the scheme was not a Welsh phenomenon?
Mr. Davies: As I have said, 32 out of 38 Welsh Members opposed the scheme. We had all the local authorities behind us. The scheme was completely out of keeping with the pattern of nursery provision in Wales, which is different from that in England. The voucher scheme was especially ill suited to our needs in Wales. That is the point that I was making.
I am proud to be the first Labour Secretary of State for Wales for 18 years. I know full well the value to Wales of my seat at the Cabinet table, and am pleased to be able to reiterate to the House that, under our proposals, there is a clear and continuing role for the Secretary of State for Wales. The voice and influence of Wales will continue to be heard in Cabinet and in Parliament, and all the more strongly for being informed by the work and deliberations of the Assembly.
Costs will, of course, be incurred, and—in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—I have placed details of these costs in the Library. I felt that it was a proper thing to do, so that the argument could be informed today on the basis of fact rather than unfounded speculation.
We have no plans for a new Assembly building. We are considering a number of alternative existing buildings, and will work to make the most effective use possible of those available buildings. The median-range estimate for running costs is £17.5 million, and within this, and for estimating purposes only, is provision for salaries for full-time members.
The Conservative party prefers the quango system. Under its system, some quango bosses receive £35,000 a year for two days a week. The Government prefer the democratic system, and the salaries of Assembly persons will be properly and independently assessed by the Senior Salaries Review Board.
The Assembly is not only about costs—it is about opportunities and progress as well. I am confident that more accountable, and therefore more responsible public bodies can also be more cost-effective. The costs of the Assembly have also to be assessed in the context of the overall impact of the Assembly on the Welsh economy. Cardiff business school estimates that about 500 new jobs will be created directly as a result of the Assembly. More importantly, in the longer term there will be great benefit for Welsh identity and for Welsh industry and commerce, stemming from a confident Wales with its own strong will.
We can gain greater benefit from Europe with the clear identity and international recognition that will come from having our own democratic government. Marketing opportunities for Wales and Welsh products will be enhanced.

1127
Contrary to the claims of the "Say No to Wales" campaign, the Confederation of British Industry has given a cautious welcome to our White Paper. I shall be having an early meeting to reassure it on the points that it has helpfully raised with Welsh Members in advance of today's debate.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: All this adds to the marginalisation of Welsh Members of the House of Commons. Is not the way to meet that to give all the powers that have been outlined to the Welsh Grand Committee, for example? I include in that legislative powers and the disbursement of moneys.
We would thereby retain the integrity of the Union, plus the integrity of the role of the directly elected and responsible Welsh Member of Parliament, who is elected on a franchise that surely covers issues such as transport, education and social services. At the same time, we would maintain—this is the point that worries my right hon. and hon. Friends—the integrity of the Union.
Mr. Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I find it difficult to take it from a Conservative Member. I say that with the greatest respect, because I know that he is an honourable and independent-minded Member. The House will know that I value independent-minded Members.
For four years in opposition, I tried to persuade the then Conservative Government to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet and to have the power to debate the matters to which I have referred, let alone to take decisions. The Conservative Government's track record on these matters was pretty poor. They would not even let the Welsh Grand Committee meet.
The House is, of course, part of our sovereign Parliament, and nothing that is included in our proposals for devolution will in any way impinge on the integrity of the House. We are talking about the administration of Welsh affairs, which are currently devolved to me as Secretary of State. It is those powers that enable me to act in an administrative capacity and to initiate secondary legislation that will be transferred to the directly elected Assembly of the Welsh people. There is no question of the sovereignty of the House being impinged.
I was talking about the impact of an Assembly on the Welsh economy. One of Wales's leading economists, Brian Morgan, has studied the most authoritative report yet on the economics of devolution produced by MacKay and Aras. It shows that, in the modern world, factors such as education and training, innovation and communication infrastructure, drive economic growth. Macro-economic factors, such as money supply and interest rates, are best left as stable as possible, with diversity and flexibility pursued locally.
That is just what the Welsh Assembly is about: local democratic control of the locally delivered services that make an economy thrive. It is our best chance ever to break out of the vicious circle of decline that has left the Welsh economy languishing for two long and weary decades.
Brian Morgan said:
"The elements favoured by the new growth theorists are exactly the areas in which the Assembly will have power to influence developments."
1128
How long will Conservative Members, who are still sentimentally attached to centralist theories, take to realise that it is local democracy delivering local growth in an environment of national and, indeed, European stability that strengthens regions and nations?
The Assembly will provide excellent value for money, by giving the people of Wales a greater say in their own affairs and in how those resources should be spent. We will ensure that the Assembly observes the highest standards of propriety in handling those resources. It will apply the principles of government accounting, and an accounting officer will be answerable to an audit committee chaired by a member of a minority party in the Assembly.
There will be an auditor-general for Wales who will, in addition to auditing the Assembly's accounts, be able to examine particular areas of spending to ensure that maximum economy, efficiency and effectiveness is being achieved. The auditor-general's reports will be published, and the audit committee will be able to consider them and pursue issues as necessary.
Only the highest standards of propriety will be acceptable, and propriety does not begin and end with finances. The highest standards of conduct will be required of the Assembly and its members. It will conduct its business openly and in a spirit of partnership with local government, business, unions and the voluntary sector. It will promote sustainable development and equal opportunities for all. The use of the English and Welsh languages will be equally valid. Those principles will be reflected in the standing orders of the Assembly that will govern its procedures.
From the outset, we shall apply the strictest codes of conduct for members with a full declaration of interests. The Tory system of sleaze and greed and peddling of political influence to serve personal not public interest will have no part in our new system of government.
The Assembly will serve Wales's interests. It will have to improve the performance of the Welsh economy and the quality and delivery of services such as education and health. I want to ensure that the Assembly has the tools to do the job from the outset. We shall therefore create in the primary legislation a new economic powerhouse and introduce immediate further changes as we dismantle the Tory quango state.
I know that some of my colleagues would urge me to go further and faster, but I believe that we have the right approach. We said in our manifesto that we would specifically empower the Assembly to reform and democratise the quango state. That is precisely what the White Paper proposes. All public bodies that operate solely in Wales will be subject to the democratic control of the Assembly. It will make the appointments, set the strategic framework, provide the funding, and hold the bodies concerned to account.
The Assembly will be given sweeping powers to restructure the quango state. It will be able to abolish most of the executive and advisory bodies that report to it. However, I cannot empower it to restructure five bodies that, like those for the national lottery and the museums, were established under royal charter or warrant. Moreover, the Government have concluded that three other bodies—the Countryside Council for Wales, the

1129
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—should retain their independent status.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Secretary of State clarify the position of the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting? The chief nursing officer currently reports directly to him. Will he tell us and the people of Wales whether, under the new arrangements, the chief nursing officer will report to the Assembly or to him?
Mr. Davies: I shall provide a general explanation so as to put the answer into context. The principle that we are applying is that those responsibilities that are currently vested in me will, with one or two minor exceptions, be transferred to the Assembly by transfer order. It follows, therefore, that the functions that I discharge will become the responsibility of the Assembly. Those people who report to me directly and exclusively will report to the Assembly.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment, because I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this matter.
The Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is currently subject to a review on a United Kingdom basis, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that review and to pass to the Assembly the discharge of professional responsibilities.
Mr. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which is not a minor body? It has a budget of £145 million, and is one of the largest, top-ten quangos. If the Welsh Assembly is not to be responsible for that budget, presumably the council will remain accountable to the Secretary of State. Will responsibility for the budget stay with the Secretary of State? If not, where will it lie?
Mr. Davies: The Countryside Council for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting will not be subject to the Assembly's specific powers to restructure quangos. We took that decision in respect of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, because the principle has been established, certainly for the greater part of this century, that university funding should be the responsibility of an arm's-length body.
Mr. Rogers: Where will it lie?
Mr. Davies: With respect to my hon. Friend, he should let me answer my hon. Friend the Member for Merthry Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and if he then wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him. These are important matters, and I want to ensure that we deal with them sensibly.
For the best part of this century, the case has been well established that the funding of universities is best done at arm's length to ensure academic freedom. That is why we
1130
have decided that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will not be subject to these specific powers. However, funding is through the block grant, and the Assembly will decide the level of funding available for university education in Wales. Currently, I am responsible for the division of the block grant among higher education, further education and other parts of the education system.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I want to make progress, because many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, but I shall give way when I know that a hon. Member has a particular concern. However, I am not anxious to encourage interventions.
Mr. Livsey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a simple point. As I understand it, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is responsible for the higher education sector, whereas the further education sector will be the responsibility of the Assembly. Why have the two sectors been split? There is some concern about that in further education in Wales.
Mr. Davies: They have not been split: there are two separate funding councils. For the reasons that I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), we want to ensure academic freedom and the independence of the university sector. We decided that it would not be appropriate to give the Assembly these specified powers to restructure the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
However, as the recent report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs shows, there is a considerable diversity of provision in further education. There is competition among schools, independent colleges and others that are funded by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.
We felt that there was a strong case for the Assembly to be specifically empowered to get rid of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales if it so wished, so that it could better plan the delivery of post-16 education. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is working with a task group to consider how best to ensure the proper integration of post-16 education. That responsibility will pass to the Assembly, so it should be properly empowered. If it wants to achieve a better integration of post-16 education, it will be empowered to do so. That is the principle that we have followed.
What we are doing, we are doing. The reform of the quangos will be done in the first wave of reform. The important point is that we shall then empower the Assembly to carry forward the process later to reflect its own views and priorities. That, of course, is the purpose of all our changes—to pass power from here in Westminster to Cardiff, where the elected representatives of Welsh people can make their own decisions to reflect their electorate's wishes.
I realise—to turn to another point which I know is of concern to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—that some concern has been expressed about the consequences for mid Wales of our plans for

1131
the new economic development agency. The development board, like the Welsh Development Agency, has a long history of success in bringing greater prosperity to the communities it serves, some of which are now among the most prosperous in the United Kingdom.
The board has provided the land and the premises needed for business growth. It has attracted welcome job-creating investment to the area and it has been instrumental in developing a range of quality services for small businesses. It has a good track record, too, as an innovator and force for change in tackling the problems of rural Wales.
None of the skills and organisation that has earned that success will be lost under my proposals. On the contrary, an important new benefit from the merger with the WDA will be to allow preparation of a single development strategy for the whole of rural Wales, which embraces the best of the policies and practices of the two bodies.
The creation of the Assembly offers new prospects and opportunities for key public services, as well as promoting economic development. Nothing is more important for the transformation of the Welsh economy than that we should have a world-beating education and training system in Wales. I have already mentioned our intention to empower the Assembly to deal with post-16 education. At present, decisions are taken at a distance from the hard-earned, practical experience of the classroom and the workplace. Instead, the Assembly will be accessible, responsive, and determined to do what is best for Wales as a whole.
Education and training can help to transform society in Wales. Both are central to realising my goals of a world-beating, job-creating economy and a better quality of life for everyone. A radical improvement in the skills and educational attainments of all is needed if Wales is to survive and succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy, and if everyone is to reap the rewards of a demanding future.
I fully expect that the Assembly will want to press on to secure still greater improvements in school performance, to ensure that all our young people reach satisfactory standards by the end of compulsory education. The Assembly will also want to ensure that education and training deliver the skills needed by the Welsh economy.
The Assembly will use the potential of new information and communications technology to expand access to education and training of the highest quality. For the first time, Wales will have an open and vigorous democratic institution concerned to achieve excellent results from all of the partners with an interest in education and training, across the country as a whole.
As well as promoting economic prosperity, the Assembly will want to improve our quality of life. At the outset, the Welsh Office's health staff, the Health Promotion Authority, and some elements of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority will be brought together, enabling the Assembly to play a decisive role in the national health service in Wales, developing its own strategic priorities and deciding on the allocation of resources to address them.
The Assembly will also be able to consider the evolving role of health authorities and to decide whether it wishes to take over particular responsibilities from them or to allocate them to other bodies. It will have all the tools it needs in its hands to bring about those changes.
1132
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already announced our decision to re-configure NHS trusts by 1 April 1999. This will release much-needed resources for direct patient care. However, this is not an exercise in centralisation. The development of primary care is vital, and we are committed to locality commissioning of services, which will empower GPs and nurses to say what their patients need.
The health service will still be part of the national health service, with all that that implies for clinical standards, research, the professions, and the handling of pay, terms and conditions of service. The Assembly's staff will participate in national discussions, and it will have the same role in making appointments that I now have.
The Assembly will also work with local government. Here, the uniqueness of what we are proposing comes into focus. Compared to anything that we have seen before, the Assembly itself will be uniquely placed to develop an holistic approach, not simply to illness but to health, and to the determinants of health. In forming its policies, it will be able to look at the health impacts of employment, housing and education. In implementing its programmes, it will be able to draw together the work of the NHS, especially new developments in primary care and public health, with the work of its partners in local government.
There is another unique element. We now have in Wales a new structure of unitary local authorities that can each pursue coherent programmes across the full range of their responsibilities, working towards tangible achievement of health and social gain for their people. I am thinking not only of social services and environmental health functions—although those are extremely important—but of all their many powers that bear directly or indirectly on people's health and well-being. I know that local government in Wales, no longer undermined by creeping centralisation or the insidious growth of the quango state, is committed to examining the formidable contribution to health that local government services, taken as a whole, can now make.
Thus, we shall have a fully equipped, inclusive Assembly, working locally with newly empowered doctors and nurses, and with unitary local authorities that are taking on an increasingly holistic approach to the full range of local government services. That has to be an unprecedented and winning combination for improving the quality of life for people in Wales.
Mr. Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend. I want to deal with the point about local government. Before I give way to him, perhaps I could again acknowledge the report that he has prepared, which gives his clear views on the relationship between the Assembly and local government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before the Secretary of State gives way, I remind the House that an awful lot of hon. Members want to speak today, and that repeated interventions and long speeches simply mean that others will not get a chance to make any contribution.
Mr. Rogers: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I find extremely cheerful and helpful the point that my right

1133
hon. Friend makes about the health functions in relation to local government. Am I to understand from what he just said that he and his Ministers are considering transferring some health functions back to local government, where they were before the most recent Tory reorganisation?
Mr. Davies: Our general approach has two elements. First, the Assembly will exist to create a partnership with local government not only in respect of health but in respect of all aspects of social provision, including economic development, housing, environmental matters and so on. Health is certainly an important part of that. Secondly, we shall empower the Assembly to do things it believes are necessary to improve the democratic working of Wales in relation to the quango state.
I said earlier that, in relation to the health authorities, for example, the Assembly will be empowered to reallocate responsibilities within the statutory framework. We have already said that there will be a reconfiguration and a reduction in the number of trusts. Central to that is our determination to ensure that local authorities are represented in trusts. So the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Welsh Local Government Association issued a statement yesterday, in which it said:
"The leaders of councils representing all political groups in Wales said the White Paper's approach to democratising the quangos is very positive."
The Welsh Local Government Association's leader, Harry Jones—this relates directly to the point that my hon. Friend raised—said:
"The White Paper sets out a broad framework which we fully endorse. We do not share the criticism being levelled at Ron Davies' decisions about the quangos whose function will be determined by the Assembly. Once the Assembly is in place we look forward to further transfer of functions from the quangos to local government. We look forward to working closely with the Secretary of State in drafting the Bill for the Assembly under the new partnership approach we have established with the Welsh Office under its new regime."
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will be delighted at the letter that I received yesterday from the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taff authority. He concluded:
"The White Paper offers the prospect of a positive partnership between local government and the Assembly and I am very pleased therefore to welcome its publication and endorse its contents."
It is therefore the case that we will develop the partnership to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda refers.
The new relationship will be in stark contrast to the past 18 years, when the views and potential contribution of local government in Wales was all too often overlooked. The relationship will be a dynamic one, as the Assembly will be expected to promote and foster local government. It will also be expected to leave local decisions to local people and concentrate its efforts on the broader policy framework—one within which local government can do business effectively and be held properly to account by local people for their success or otherwise in achieving publicly declared standards of service and value for money.
1134
The Assembly will be required to take account of local government interests when overseeing the development of public bodies in Wales. Councils will be given a greater say in the running of quangos which can show that they are capable of adding real value to the way in which services are delivered. The restructuring of Tai Cymru, for example, and the extra responsibilities that local government will have for promoting housing strategies shows what can be done.
The Assembly will be given the power to transfer quango functions to local government, and the Welsh Local Government Association will be given every opportunity to highlight the case for devolution from Cardiff to our local communities across the full range of economic and social policy.
In terms of paying for local services, the Assembly will assume all my current responsibilities for local government finance. Therefore, it will provide revenue support to local councils and capital spending approvals. However, as the entire local government finance system in England and Wales will be subject to a comprehensive spending review, details of the Assembly's role in areas such as council tax, business rates and revenue support will depend on the outcome of that study and any related further primary legislation passed by this House.
Whatever the result, the Assembly's approach will be heavily influenced by its general responsibility to promote and foster local government in Wales, and it will be held to account for its performance in so doing by the ballot box. The Assembly will not have the power to take existing functions from local government. Local government has its own legislative base, and that can be changed only by further primary legislation in this House. I am delighted that the Welsh Local Government Association has been so positive and enthusiastic in its support for our proposals.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Could the Secretary of State address the question that I raised a few days ago about Europe and representation in it? He did not deal with that in detail in his speech. Page 22 of the White Paper states:
"The Secretary of State for Wales may participate in relevant meetings with the Council of Ministers and, where appropriate, represent the United Kingdom on relevant items."
On Tuesday, the Secretary of State said that Wales would not be disadvantaged in representation in Europe compared with a Scottish Parliament and Ministers. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that Ministers of the Scottish Executive—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked for reasonably short interventions, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a minor speech. Will he come to the point quickly?
Mr. Wigley: I am about to conclude. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"Ministers in the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to participate … and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol.298, c.1043.]
If there is a Conservative Secretary of State and a non-Conservative Assembly, how on earth can the interests of Wales be safeguarded unless the Assembly itself can represent Wales in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Davies: I could not find the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ask the Under-

1135
Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who will be winding up, to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point if he is not satisfied with my reply. [Interruption.] The matter is not funny. The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and genuine inquiry, and I want to give him a fair answer. I fail to see why that should give rise to childish, schoolboy mirth among Opposition Members.
We have made it clear that the Assembly will be empowered to ensure that the Welsh voice is heard directly in delegations to Europe. I have given the assurance that Scotland and Wales will have an equivalent relationship with Europe. The executive members of the Welsh Assembly will be able to be part of those delegations. I shall ask my hon. Friend to clarify that in winding up.
Our proposals are important for Wales, and for Britain. The Government's programme for constitutional reform is now well on course. Wales will remain firmly a part of the United Kingdom but we are delivering our manifesto commitment to constitutional change and bringing openness and democracy to the processes of government in Wales. We are modernising the quango state and ensuring that decisions on public services will be taken for and in Wales by an Assembly that is accountable to Wales. That is the right way forward for our country, and I invite the House to support our proposals.
10.14 am
Mr. Michael Ancram: The more I listen to the Secretary of State speaking about his proposals, the more I am reminded of Del boy in "Only Fools and Horses" trying to sell his latest doubtful wares. Behind the sales patter, there is the faint but somewhat charming impression that he does not really believe his sales pitch, and that he does not expect any of us to believe it, either.
I also have the feeling that, inside the new Labour Ron, there is a more real Ron trying to get out—the Ron who tells things as they are, the Ron of 1979, who voted against devolution and who called proposals for Scottish tax-raising powers "economic illiteracy". It has been rather painful to watch the old Ron trying unsuccessfully to get out, but I urge him to keep trying, to be true to his beliefs, and to turn his back on what is essentially a constitutional mess that will sideline Wales and threaten this United Kingdom.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The right hon. Gentleman had another painful day yesterday, when he heard the triumphant welcome by Scots Members from all parties except one for the proposals. He has also heard the proposals for an elected body for London, which I understand his party supports, and calls about East Anglia, the north-west of England and the north-east of England. If a great Parliament is to be set up in Scotland and if there are to be strong bodies throughout England, why on earth should Wales be left behind?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should check on our policy on London. We back the concept of an elected mayor, but we do not back the concept of a strategic authority. He should not necessarily take as gospel what he hears from his Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, because frequently it is not. He makes an interesting point, and it is one that I was about to deal with. The Secretary
1136
of State for Wales keeps on telling us that we are debating not just a Welsh matter but the issue of constitutional reform throughout the United Kingdom. My concern is that any constitutional reform affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is fairly evident from the Government Benches that Labour does not see this as a matter for the United Kingdom. There is one Scottish Member present, and a smattering of English Members. The rest are Welsh Members. That shows that there is still a belief in the House that devolution is a matter only for Scotland and Wales. We argue that it is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole, and we say that what is done in Scotland and Wales affects England as well. We are firm in that belief.
Mr. John Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that devolution was a key element in Labour's manifesto at the general election, and that we had the biggest endorsement of the British people for a long time, while the hon. Gentleman's party had its worst result for 150 years?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that the election was fought solely on the issue of devolution. I do not think that that is true, and it certainly was not the case in England.
It also raises the question: if the election result resolved the issue whether devolution should go ahead, why we are now to have referendums in September? Surely the point of that is to allow the people of Wales to consider the arguments not only for an Assembly but against it, and to make up their minds on the basis of those arguments. In that democratic process, is it not right that our sincere and fundamental arguments that the proposals will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom should be put to the people of Wales at that referendum? The suggestion that is often put to me—that somehow we are being undemocratic, given the election result, in expressing our views—defies the logic of democracy.
Mr. Dalyell: Simply as a matter of fact, there are two Scottish Members present—myself and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Is it not the reality that Scottish people will have to choose between the two of us?
Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I could answer one intervention at a time.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has put his finger on it. This is a democratic process, in which the people of Wales and of Scotland are going to have to make a fundamental decision, which, if they get it wrong, they will not be able to change five years later. It will have profound and lasting consequences, not only for Wales and Scotland but for the whole of the UK. Therefore, this debate should be conducted in all seriousness, with both sides of the argument being heard and being put.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman asked a simple question: why are we having a referendum? There is a simple answer—because that was promised in the election. Is that an alien concept to Conservative Members?
Mr. Ancram: What is an alien concept is the idea that the only reason for having a referendum is that it was in

1137
the manifesto. Are the Government telling the people of Wales and of Scotland that this is all a totally cosmetic exercise? Is that what the hon. Gentleman suggests—that we are having the referendum only because it was in the manifesto? The referendum is important, because it allows the people of Wales and of Scotland to consider this single issue and to make a judgment on it.
It is easy to jeer at the people who warn that half-baked proposals of this sort will undermine the stability of our constitution and lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Of course it is not explicit in the White Paper, but it is implicit in the dynamic that it will create. The Assembly will be the first step along the road to that break-up.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: No—I am going to make some progress, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suggested that we should try to keep our speeches brief.
The Secretary of State said on Tuesday that he considered the Assembly to be "an evolving concept". He does not see it as what he is promising us today; he sees it as something that will change, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) obviously did in his welcome to the White Paper. I think that I can fairly say that his welcome was not so much for what is currently on offer as for what he believes it might become in due course. What he is looking for is not consistent with the Government' assurances that all their devolution plans are intended to strengthen the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wigley: I have made it clear in the House and outside that the model being offered by the Government is different from what we in Plaid Cymru seek. However, that model has certain benefits in its own right. We would prefer a fully fledged democracy in Wales, with law-making and tax-varying powers; but, even if we do not get that, there are advantages in having a directly elected Assembly that can democratise the quangos and ensure that we are never again ruled by the Tories, as we have been for the past 18 years.
Mr. Ancram: I find it hard to believe that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House that he does not seek to use what is on offer to achieve his concept of independence for Wales in the long term.
The White Paper is the thin end of the wedge. The fact that it seeks to carry both nationalists and those who cherish the United Kingdom shows the constitutional mess it is.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday.
Mr. Ancram: I may have said it yesterday, but something that is worth saying is worth saying again, and I can say it over and again, because it is key to our objections.
The White Paper cannot achieve both those aims, because they are mutually exclusive. If it seeks to do that, it can create only disillusion, disappointment, resentment
1138
and impatience in both Wales and the rest of the UK, which will play into the hands only of the people who wish to pull our system down rather than to build it up. Expectations will be dashed, leading to alienation, further demands in terms of both power and money, and growing pressures within the constitution, until the breaking point is reached and the link snaps.
Those are what Conservative Members see as the consequences of the White Paper. That is why we have a responsibility, whether the Government like it or not, to warn the people of Wales and of the whole of the UK of the real dangers before this referendum takes place because, once we have set foot on this path, the die may be cast and there may be no going back.
History teaches us that events can often have a life of their own, leading to unintended consequences. Constitutional reforms of this sort are even more prone to that. That is why Conservative Members reject the White Paper and oppose the concept within it. Quite simply, we believe that it is bad for Wales.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I am not going to give way for the moment; I will give way a little later.
Marginalisation is the most immediate threat facing Wales under these proposals. It is simply naive to believe that, were Wales to have an Assembly as proposed, the voice of Wales at Westminster and in Government would remain undiminished, let alone enhanced. The main Welsh voice at the centre of government and power would, to put it bluntly, be castrated.
The Secretary of State would be no more than a messenger boy, a voice without power or influence, a broken reed, bleating on the margins of Cabinet government, because the harsh reality of government is that, when someone abdicates his powers and gives away his responsibilities in an environment that has both in abundance, he is left with no influence and no ability to attract attention.
The extent of the Secretary of State's abandonment of power and responsibility is most chillingly summed up in paragraph 1.19 of the White Paper:
"The Secretary of State will retain a small team of civil servants to support his work"—
a small team for a non-job; a sounding board for a tinkling cymbal.
Incidentally, we are told that Welsh Questions will continue in the House. What on earth are they going to be about if all the matters that normally come up at Welsh Questions have been devolved to a Welsh Assembly? Perhaps we could have an answer to that. What is the House's role going to be in terms of questioning the Secretary of State about what is happening in Wales?
If the voice of Wales at the centre of government will have been eunuched, what of the Members of Parliament? The first cry at Westminster will be who speaks for Wales—Assembly members, who, according to the answer to a parliamentary question will be on more than £80,000 a year in terms of salaries and allowances for their glorified council jobs, or Members of Parliament? In Wales the voices will be local, and at Westminster the

1139
Welsh voices will, in the nature of politics, become increasingly irrelevant. History demonstrates that with chilling impact.
The tragic reality is that "A Voice for Wales", in terms of the wider influence of Wales, would quickly become an introverted voice that would end up speaking only to itself, because no one else would be listening. In a necessarily outward-looking world, the Welsh people would pay a heavy price for what the Secretary of State, euphemistically and improbably, referred to on Tuesday as
"a real say in the way public services in Wales are run."
The concept that more local levels of government more closely represent local opinion than Members of Parliament is not one that I readily accept, not least because of the work that many Labour Members do in that regard. It is an insult to them to claim otherwise.
The choice for me is between the genuine and effective democratic accountability over Welsh affairs exercised by Welsh Members of Parliament and the expensive talking shop, stacked under the additional member system, with vested and extremely well-paid party interests, which the White Paper offers. I say in passing that it is difficult to accept that having additional members is more democratic, because the additional member system is the very stuff of political patronage.
Mr. Ron Davies: Given the right hon. Gentleman's recent experience, I should have thought that he would have seen some merit in having a system that ensured that, if a party gained 20 per cent. of the vote, it had at least some representation. In his recent past, he had responsibility for these matters in Northern Ireland. Is he saying that the electoral system in Northern Ireland, which ensured a measure of proportionality, does not have merit?
Mr. Ancram: I am going to stick to what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, and I will it say it again. If he wishes to draw Northern Ireland as an analogy, he should consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before he does so, because he will find that, in Northern Ireland, for real reasons to do with the way in which society there is divided, in a way that it is not anywhere else in the UK, three forms of elections are used for various electoral purposes. Each has a political and social purpose designed specifically to meet an objective in Northern Ireland. To draw analogies from that is dangerous.
The point that I was making and that the Secretary of State cannot deny is that he will have friends in Wales who will be delighted at the concept that, if they are nice to him, they may find themselves elected to a Welsh Assembly without having to fight a constituency, because they will get on to a list.
That brings me to costs. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) suggested on Tuesday that, in its first four-year term, the Assembly would cost the Welsh taxpayer around £100 million, the Secretary of State said:
"I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's figures do not add up."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 753-74.]
Let us try the Secretary of State's figures. The White Paper allows for set-up costs of £17 million, and running costs are estimated at £20 million per year—which is
1140
£80 million over four years. The total is £97 million so far. We know that the White Paper will cost about £1 million by the time it is distributed, and the referendum will cost some £3 million. According to my mathematics, that totals about £100 million. I find it odd that the Secretary of State should claim that those figures do not add up.
Since then, the Government have supplied a parliamentary answer—to which the Secretary of State referred—in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) of 23 July. It gives detailed estimates of Assembly running costs of more than £17 million a year—including £82,100 a year for Assembly Members' salaries and allowances—with more expenditure for
"committee chairmen and other senior figures."
Who are those "other senior figures"? How much more will they receive, and what will they be doing? I find those figures interesting, and I hope that the Minister will explain what they mean.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In referring to salaries and allowances mentioned in the parliamentary answer, would it not be fairer for the right hon. Gentleman to mention that they are estimates prepared for planning purposes? They are simply borrowings from the study conducted for BBC Wales by the Cardiff business school, and do not represent any final decision. According to the same parliamentary answer, that decision will be made by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention that?
Mr. Ancram: The answer is given by the Government, not by me. I am entitled—at least, I think I am—to rely on information supplied by the Government. I refer the hon. Gentleman to another part of that answer, which states:
"The Assembly might in due course take a different view on its needs in this area, in particular. It might need to take on more policy staff depending on its priorities."
That means that the Assembly is likely to cost more than the sum mentioned in the White Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): What percentage of the total Welsh Office budget does the right hon. Gentleman think the predicted cost of the Welsh Assembly will be?
Mr. Ancram: I am not interested in percentages: I am interested—as the Minister should be—in the amount of money that will come out of the Welsh block that could otherwise be spent on education, health and the like. They are the areas in which the people of Wales are interested.
It is quite clear that the figure cited by hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is not far out: £100 million will come out of the Welsh Office budget in the first four years in order to pay for this talking shop. Some £90 million will come from the Welsh block that could have been spent on schools, hospitals, roads, and other services that the people of Wales need.
What happened to the Government's election priorities of education, education and education? Does the Secretary of State believe that Welsh schools have enough? If he does, I am sure that Welsh schools will be interested to hear it.

1141
I ask the Minister: how many new teachers would that money employ in Wales over the next four years? I suspect that the Government will tell us to consider the savings to be made from the reorganisation of quangos. What happened to the much vaunted bonfire of the quangos? The Government have been in power for 12 weeks, and suddenly quangos are not so bad after all. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State said:
"I want not so much to abolish those quangos as to ensure the services they provide are democratically accountable".—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 769.]
Ms Jackie Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to a parliamentary question. The last paragraph—we should examine it in its entirety—states:
"The total running cost based on the above would be £17.1 million per year."
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in 1996, the then Government's figures showed that the top 10 quangos in Wales cost £52 million a year to run? What is more, that figure had increased from £26 million in 1994—a 100 per cent. increase, at a time when the retail price index rose by 6 per cent. Clearly, the Welsh Assembly would save running costs, not increase them, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The money saved can be devoted to front-line services in Wales.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her speech. I suggest that she asks the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the cost of quangos will be saved. I understand that, in the same answer, he said that he could not make that calculation at the moment. We are talking about additional, not alternative, expenditure, which could be spent on schools, hospitals and so on.
Before the hon. Lady's intervention, I was quoting the Secretary of State. He has changed his mind about quangos—did he find that they were not so unaccountable after all? Is it not true that 13 elected councillors serve on the boards he is seeking to merge—and that eight of them are Labour councillors? Perhaps that is the explanation of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not abolishing, but merging, those quangos.
I welcome the tribute that the Secretary of State paid on Tuesday to the public bodies for the way in which they have significantly improved the economic prospects of people in Wales and the quality of the public services they enjoy. Presumably that is why there have been so few bonfires in the past few weeks, and why we can be sure that there will be few job losses.
If the natural law of public sector mergers applies, I suspect that we will see that new super-quango—under its politically correct new name of "economic powerhouse"—employing more, rather than fewer, people. Although I congratulate the Secretary of State on his conversion to the merits of public bodies, I do not see how the suggested merger of three quangos is consistent with his remarks this morning that he is seeking to decentralise power—that seems to be an effective means of centralisation.
Turning to the powers of the Assembly, as the Secretary of State said, we have now had more time to digest the White Paper and the answers he gave following the statement on Tuesday. Together, they have not made pleasant or reassuring eating.
1142
For instance, I asked whether it would be possible for the Assembly to reduce the revenue support grant by top-slicing it to increase expenditure on its own programmes, therefore effectively requiring the councils to raise their council taxes to make up the shortfall. With the predicted removal of capping, that will be even more possible, and, I suspect, even more tempting for a Welsh Assembly. I suggested that that might be an indirect way for the Assembly to raise taxes, contrary to all the undertakings given that it would not be able to do so.
The reply I received—that the Assembly would not have direct tax-raising powers—was indistinct, to say the least. On the back of that reply, I must ask: will it have indirect tax-raising powers or back-door methods of raising tax of the sort that I have outlined? Is there anything to prevent the Assembly doing what I have suggested? I do not believe there is, and the people of Wales should be well aware that a vote for this Assembly in the referendum would, in the fulness of time, almost certainly be a vote for higher council taxes, with nothing to protect them.
The people of north Wales should be even more wary. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked the Secretary of State whether it would be wholly in the hands of the Assembly to decide which councils would get how much of the revenue support grant, and whether, with south Wales making up two thirds of the membership, it could vote more to its local authorities than to those in north Wales. With commendable brevity, the Secretary of State replied, "Yes." So now north Wales knows—and I am sure that the people of that region will want to take that into account when they vote in September.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to misrepresent me in that way—that is the only reason why I seek to intervene upon him.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked me a theoretical question, and I answered directly that of course it was theoretically possible. The fact is that things do not work like that.
At present, we have in place a system of distributing the block grant involving detailed discussions with representatives of Welsh local government. I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of civic affairs in Wales is fairly limited, but I assure him that that is the system. It involves agreement between the Welsh Office and local government in Wales. After the Assembly is in place, agreement will be reached by arrangement through discussions between the Assembly and local government on the basis of an agreed formula.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman puts a lot of faith in such consultation. He cannot guarantee what he has said. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked:
"If this House votes a certain amount to local government, will it be wholly in the hands of the new Assembly to decide which councils get how much? If south Wales makes up two thirds of the membership, will it be able to vote itself more for its local authorities than north Wales will get?"
The Secretary of State replied:
"The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions"—
not hypothetical questions—
"The answers are yes, yes and yes."—[0fficial Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 771.]
Mr. Donald Anderson: Leaving aside the precedents of Wandsworth and Westminster, does the right hon.

1143
Gentleman agree that it is absurd for him, as a non-Welshman, to try to put the frighteners on Wales, pretending that north will be set against south and Welsh speakers against non-Welsh speakers? There is an element that perhaps he cannot understand: the people of Wales have a basic sense of fair play. I am sure that that will prevail.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is continuing with the suggestion he made earlier this morning: that the possible implications of the White Paper should not be put before the people of Wales before they vote in a referendum. I find that a disgraceful suggestion for democracy.
When the Secretary of State addressed the issue on Tuesday, he talked about regional committees in the Assembly. I should like to know more about those committees. What powers would they have to guard against the dangers that I have talked about? Are they not more likely to highlight rivalries and differences rather than to cure them? We should be told why the committees should be regarded as anything more than politically cosmetic.
One further area needs to be clarified this morning—the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) touched on it earlier. On Tuesday, he asked the Secretary of State about the position in relation to Europe. The Secretary of State answered:
"Wales will not be disadvantaged in our representation in Europe as compared with the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers."— [Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 761.]
The Secretary of State for Scotland told us yesterday—somewhat to our surprise and horror—that Ministers from the Scottish Parliament will be able not only to participate in European Council of Ministers negotiations, but, when appropriate, to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom. I shall continue to point out, as I did yesterday, that that is a disturbing concept, because those Ministers, who will speak on behalf of the United Kingdom, will not be answerable to this House of Commons. That is a departure from the normal rules of accountability.
The Secretary of State says that the people of Wales are not to be disadvantaged in comparison with the people of Scotland. Where in the White Paper for Wales is the power given for members of the Assembly, or the chairmen of committees of the Assembly, to participate in negotiations of the Council of Ministers, or, when appropriate, to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom? It is not there. There is only an indistinct power to discuss with and consult the UK delegations before they enter the negotiations.
Mr. Rogers: I find it a bit much for a Tory shadow Minister to talk about the representation of Wales in Europe, when a previous Secretary of State for Wales struck a dirty deal with the nationalists so that they could have representation on the Committee of the Regions ahead of the Liberals, simply to keep the Tory Government in power.
Mr. Ancram: I am asking a relevant question. When the Secretary of State made his comment on Tuesday, was he aware of the power that would be given to Ministers of the Scottish Parliament? If so, how does he explain his comment that there will be no disadvantage or difference?
1144
Perhaps he would like to respond to that now. I am giving him the chance to do so. If he does not respond, it raises the question—which is central for a balanced constitution—why Wales is once again being treated differently from Scotland. We believe that there should be no devolution. It is incumbent on those proposing devolution to explain the differences, discriminations and discrepancies.
Since Tuesday, I have seen nothing to change my opinion that the proposals are bad for Wales and bad for the United Kingdom. They create an expensive talking shop that will do nothing to improve the lives of the people of Wales. Indeed, they will pay for it, in jobs and services lost. It will set Wales aside from the rest of the United Kingdom, removing its clout in the Government and its voice at Westminster. It will create a focus for discontent, playing into the hands of nationalism and those who wish for the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The White Paper is built on the false premise of strengthening Wales and the United Kingdom, but it will do the opposite. We comprehensively reject it, and we call on the people of Wales to do the same.
10.44 am
Mr. Alan Williams: I start with a few personal comments. My hon. Friends, with whom I have served in the House for many years, know my opinion on devolution. We have argued about it amicably, and we have lived amicably with our differences. We have differed, and we have remained friends. They know me well enough to accept that if a constituent told me that they believed that Wales needed an Assembly as a focal point for its identity and culture, I would tell them that yes was the only way for them to vote. That is not a matter of evidence, but a matter of belief. There is no proof one way or the other. It is a personal decision.
My hon. Friends also know that I asked for a referendum two years ago. I asked for support in the Welsh Labour group, but the views expressed there were different from mine. I felt that a referendum would give us an opportunity for an open and intelligent debate on issues that are crucial to the long-term future of Wales.
I am not joining the yes campaign, obviously, but I am also not joining the no campaign. I have tried in the past few weeks to help the people who have to make their decision, particularly those who are not yet convinced either way, by obtaining the information necessary for an honest, informed and tolerant debate. That is why I have not done television interviews, but have asked parliamentary questions. I have been trying to get at the facts that the public need to know to make their minds up.
I was vastly reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment earlier, in response to an intervention, that he greatly values independent-minded Members. I wish that he had not kept it a secret for so long. In the new spirit of consensus and good will that is now being generated, I hope that he will join me in condemning those outside the House who are turning the debate into one based on personal venom and vituperation. No one has been more of a victim of that than my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that that must end. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say so when he winds up.
In pursuit of some of the facts that are not always evident, I asked the other day whether the concept was evolving. When voting in a referendum, the public should

1145
know exactly what they are going to get. In all fairness, the Secretary of State admitted, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said, that the concept would be evolving, and that they would not be involved once the Assembly was set up. He said that any future decision on development would be made by the politicians. If I understood him correctly, he meant the politicians here, not the politicians down there.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's comments about my question on the detailed costing of the Assembly. He said that he gave the information because it was the proper thing to do. I accept that. He may say that the information was not in the White Paper because one has to draw a limit to how much detail one puts in a White Paper. In that case, why did I need to table a parliamentary question?
There is a well established system whereby Ministers who want to get information out plant questions for written answer, so that they have the opportunity to give that information. With only a week to go before the recess, we nearly missed the opportunity. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether there is anything else we need to know that has not yet been made public.
In pursuit of reasoned debate, I was astonished by the demand by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for a loyalty oath. We are to have a referendum on the future of Wales, yet the Under-Secretary was saying to the people of Wales, "Suspend your powers of judgment. Vote out of blind loyalty." Blind loyalty has had a mixed history in Europe. It has led to some of the greatest acts of heroism, but it was also the most frequently quoted defence at Nuremberg. Blind loyalty has always been the aspiration of zealots and the demand of despots. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.
Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Williams: I would prefer not to, because time is limited. I do not want to give way, because I want to let my hon. Friends make their own speeches.
Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the point about loyalty?
Mr. Williams: I am sorry—I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Flynn: There was an occasion in Parliament when my right hon. Friend was unjustly sacked from his position as shadow Secretary of State for Wales. One of his colleagues, in an act of personal loyalty, wrote a suicidal note in his favour, and was then himself sacked. Does not my right hon. Friend think that, when we have a courageous Secretary of State who is fighting a brave battle for us all in Wales, his loyalty should go to him?
Mr. Williams: There is a difference. When my hon. Friend did what he did—I have always respected him and appreciated his loyalty—I went to the Leader of the Opposition and asked for and secured his reinstatement.
1146
The difference is that my hon. Friend showed loyalty with integrity. The Under-Secretary of State was asking for blind loyalty.
If the debate is to progress sensibly, we must strip away irrelevancies and myths. I tabled a parliamentary question as a result of a statement made by the Under-Secretary of State that thousands of jobs would be lost in Wales if the people of Wales did not vote yes. When challenged in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), he said that that was not what he had said. He claimed that he had said that thousands of jobs would be threatened in Wales. My hon. Friend, however, had the press release issued by the Welsh Office, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
I asked what studies the Department had undertaken on the effect on jobs and investment in Wales of the creation of a Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State replied:
"None, but my Department is keeping these issues under review."—[Official Report, 19 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 272.]
Why can we not just stick to the facts? Why do we have to fabricate evidence when none exists in support of a case? If a case stands, it stands on its own; we do not need to make statements that have no foundation in reality.
Since the previous referendum, two major factors have influenced public opinion. The first is the 18 years of Tory devastation, and the second is the proliferation of quangos. I take first the greatest myth, which was well-exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in an article at the weekend—that somehow, if Wales had had an Assembly in the 1980s, it could have escaped the impact of Thatcherism. If I for one moment thought that that was true, I would not be in a position of dissent. I would be out there campaigning vigorously in favour of the Assembly.
However, when they think about the matter, most of my hon. Friends must realise that the myth is based on incorrect economic and constitutional assumptions. In the White Paper, the Secretary of State makes it clear that macro-economic policy will remain in the hands of central Government. The first Howe Budget would still have destroyed the jobs of Wales, as it destroyed the jobs of England. Even if, by some miracle, Wales had initially escaped the first impact, as the factories closed down in England, the factories in Wales and the steelworks in Wales that supplied them would have closed down as well.
Furthermore, there would have been no escape from the other policies that are associated in Wales with Thatcherism. The Prime Minister has made it clear that, even after this devolution—as would have been the case after the previous devolution if it had taken place—Parliament will be sovereign. Even with nursery vouchers and the poll tax, if a Government in Westminster were determined to impose such policies on Wales, they would be imposed on Wales. That will be the case in future, whether we have the Assembly or not. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that that is so.
Mr. Ron Davies: This is an important point, which is why I want to take issue with my right hon. Friend on it. I accept his analysis of the economic case. Clearly, the devastation inflicted on this country during the 1980s would have happened whether we had an Assembly or not. I fully endorse that point.

1147
On the latter point about the constitutional question, however, the poll tax as it was constructed was implemented in Wales by means of three separate pages of secondary legislation. My right hon. Friend is correct in his assertion that Parliament is sovereign and that that will continue to be the case. Any Government, if they wanted to implement a poll tax, could implement it. No Government, however, could implement a poll tax in the way in which it was implemented in the 1980s.
If we had had an Assembly in the 1980s and the Government had tried to implement the poll tax in the way they did, there would have been an impact. Either the initial primary legislation would have had to impose a poll tax on Wales or the Government would have had to recognise a different political system in Wales and to decide that it would not proceed.
I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's argument that this House is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign and can always do what it wishes to do. It is my hope, however, that our political systems are not fossilised and that they are capable of growing, maturing and responding to different circumstances. When we have an Assembly, that evolution of our political practices will hasten.
Mr. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for conceding my point. If the Government of the day chose to incorporate a poll tax in primary legislation, it would be enacted. I thank him for that clarification.
This matter concerns not only legislation, but the implementation of power and of policy. The Treasury can always ring-fence the money the Budget gives. There is an enormous difference between handing the whole loaf over, handing it over in a couple of pieces, or handing it over in thin slices. That option is always available to the Treasury, as our councils have, unfortunately, found out. The Treasury, even with an Assembly, would still have the capacity to constrict and almost to eliminate any discretion by the Assembly. The Assembly would have been forced to become a council, as it were—an agent of Government policy.
If there had been an Assembly during the Thatcher times or subsequently, the interface with the Cabinet, as the White Paper of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes clear, would still be the Secretary of State. Thus, the Secretary of State would still have been a Tory, and an English Member of Parliament representing an English constituency—and may well be so again. So an Assembly in no way addresses that problem.
Although Parliament is sovereign, as most of us here believe—I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) believes this, for perfectly understandable reasons, and will, I think, endorse my point—there can be no escape from another surge of policy such as that enacted by Mrs. Thatcher. I must be careful—I am going on for too long.
Another feature is the quango state. On his white charger, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stood, challenging the quango state. Many hon. Members will accept that it is not vanity to say that, over the past seven years, I have probably done as much as anybody in the House to expose the shortcomings of quangos. Indeed, if I may say to my right hon. Friend, my position is less ambivalent than his. After the first hearing on the Welsh Development Agency, he came to see me in my room to see whether it was essential to have a second hearing—
1148
not for any dishonourable reason, but because he felt that the WDA was so important to Wales that we had to try to protect it from damage.
Mr. Flynn: Quite right.
Mr. Williams: Quite right, says my hon. Friend. Quite wrong! As I told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the time—I am not in any way impugning him; he did not dispute this—what was imperative was that the WDA stables had to be seen to have been swept clean, and a second Public Accounts Committee hearing was needed to do that.
As has been suggested already, we were promised a crusade and a bonfire, but all we have had are a couple of burned-out coals. The Residuary Body for Wales was looking after the already completed changeover of local authorities without the White Paper. That is as dead on the ground as anything can get. The death sentence of the Cardiff Bay development corporation was already enshrined even before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State included it in his White Paper.
My right hon. Friend has quoted the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales as quangos that are being abolished. That is a nicety of language. They are being abolished by being force-fed into the WDA. I am not interested in arguing whether it is right or wrong that they should go there, but they still exist. My right hon. Friend says that it is all about power. Well, their powers still exist—it is just that fewer people will exercise more power.
It is the same for hospital trusts. Every year, £3.5 billion is spent by health service bodies in Wales. We are told—again, one has to read the wording carefully—that there will be fewer trusts. That does not mean that there will be any less command at the heights of the NHS in Wales: it just means that there will be a few more mergers. There will be no change in the power or in who exercises it.
My right hon. Friend really gave the game away in an interview in The Western Mail, when he said that it was essential that the important quangos were dealt in advance of the Assembly being set up. He was also reported as saying:
"many of the quangos which will survive were small, had a small budget, had little or no economic impact, and were advisory bodies retained by every Government."
Of course they are. He goes on to say that the Government want
"to leave decisions to the Assembly on how it would deal with other quangos."
It does not seem the greatest act of confidence to say that, when it comes to the big ones, they have to deal with them themselves. In fact, one is bound to ask: why bother? Why not do it all ourselves? If my right hon. Friend has the power to deal with the big ones, he has the power to deal with the small ones—just as he can give power to the councils. He does not have to wait for an Assembly to give powers to the councils.
Why should they wait two years? Give it to them now. I do not know whether the Opposition would support the legislation, but I am sure that all of us on the Labour Benches would do so immediately in order to transfer powers to councils.
Mr. Davies: The reason why I am not proposing that is because it is not the policy on which I was elected. The

1149
Labour party fought the election with a clear prescription to introduce devolution to Wales, and that is what I am now trying to deliver.
On the construction of the economic powerhouse, it was my view—I firmly hold to this—that, if we had said that the power to restructure the quangos would go to the Assembly, and that that power would not be exercised for two and a half or three years, there would be a period of uncertainty during which the work of the WDA, the Land Authority and the DBRW would be hampered by such insecurity. I wanted to prevent that, and to create the powerhouse, ensuring that it had the supporting structure of the training and enterprise councils and so on, so that the work of economic development could proceed. The other matters are properly left to the Assembly.
Mr. Williams: I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend's intention at all. I am just asking why it should be so limited. Why does not he go ahead and do it all himself? Then we would not need to create a permanent 60-member Assembly to do something that he could do in the next 18 months by simple legislation and administrative action.
Mr. Davies rose
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, but I am telling you that your policy is wrong. That is what debate is about—
Mr. Davies rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members on the Treasury Bench will have time to wind up at the end of the debate. There is little point in responding to all the questions and taking time away from Back Benchers who are very anxious to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Williams: One is bound to ask why, if it is so impossible to deal with matters without an Assembly, my right hon. Friend is saying that our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, will be unable to achieve many similar objectives in England because he will not have an Assembly. Is he saying that his colleagues are failing in their duties?
I am trying to cut my comments short. I was interested in a written answer a week last Wednesday, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about launching his crusade. He said:
"I shall play a vigorous part in securing a yes vote, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, other Cabinet colleagues and hon. Members representing constituencies all over the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 378.]
From him of all people, I thought that that was rather a strange proposition. An improbable picture crossed my mind of St. Ron, his white gown flowing, brandishing his manifesto above his head, striding across the Severn bridge backed by a horde of English Members of Parliament. Once again, he is taking the English to Wales to tell us Welsh what is good for us.
11.8 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: I want to make a much more positive speech than did the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I have
1150
some respect for him, but I think that he is opening doors that have been open in Wales for centuries. We have not achieved democracy in Wales because our divisions have been exploited by the enemies of Wales who have fed on them. I do not think that we should give succour to those who are negating democracy in Wales.
The White Paper is entitled "A Voice for Wales"; I want to address what kind of voice that should be. I cannot pretend, as a Liberal Democrat, to be entirely in agreement with the total thrust of Government policy, but I think that in this case it brings a very worthy element of democracy to Wales. It is incredible, in view of the democratic deficit in Wales, that the official Opposition question the need for an Assembly.
Why does Wales need an Assembly? Since 1951, the Conservatives have ruled in Wales for 35 years and Labour for 11, yet no Conservative majority has been achieved in Wales in that time—far from it. The Conservatives had a high point in 1979, when 13 Conservative Members were elected to Westminster from Welsh constituencies. Wales has never voted Tory in the past 100 years, yet it has been ruled by them for most of that time. Careful consideration of the arithmetic shows that, between 1897 and 1997, the Tories have been in power for 51 years, Labour for 21, Liberals for 10 and coalitions for 18. In all that time, the Welsh electorate has not voted Conservative.
We have had to stomach policies to which we would never subscribe, and that has culminated in the past 18 years in which we have been marginalised. Four Secretaries of State were imposed on us from English constituencies, like governors of a colony. The 1,400 appointees to some 84 quangos have mainly been Conservative party members. We have been ruled by the Tory party in exile.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The part of the country that I represent has never returned a Labour Member and has had to experience periods of Labour government. If we live in a Union and believe in a United Kingdom, why should that be of concern?
Mr. Livsey: I do not believe that the White Paper is a threat to the Union, and when England gets regional government, those problems will be addressed. The quangos have spent £2.5 billion in an act of political privilege that must be banished. I agree with those who say that the bonfire of the quangos is not big enough, but at least it is a start.
Wales has been ruled by a party that does not practise democracy itself. The Tory party is only now starting to think about giving its members one person, one vote to elect its leader. Only now, in 1997, is the Tory party beginning to practise democracy, yet it lectures us about how Wales should be ruled. We know better, and we have a far better track record of democracy in Wales.
Wales has a great need for democracy. We have 22 local authorities with 1,200 members elected through the ballot box, which is the best way to achieve democracy. The Assembly will extend that. In the 1997 election, not one Conservative was elected to Westminster from Wales. That was the logical outcome of the points that I have made so far.
The Liberal Democrats have no quarrel with the principle of an Assembly, but what should we measure the White Paper's proposals against? An Assembly is

1151
necessary, but the degree of devolution is a matter for debate. We need a debate about the functions of the Assembly, the number of seats it will have and its method of election.
We need to discuss, for example, the degree of proportional representation. We must promote political and geographical inclusiveness, including representation for individual political parties. Gender is also important; the role of women should be given its proper priority in any Welsh Assembly. We must ensure that the electoral system helps to achieve those objectives, and ask how they compare with the model in the White Paper.
Labour's Welsh Assembly will control the Welsh Office budget of £7 billion, but it will not be able to make primary legislation or vary taxes. The Liberal Democrats would prefer that it had powers to do both. Indeed, even the former Welsh Office Minister, Sir Wyn Roberts, has said that he likes the idea of a power to vary taxes, because Wales could then have lower taxes and become a tax haven. We should consider that advantage of tax-varying powers, but they are not on offer in the White Paper.
The legislation presaged in the White Paper would bring greater accountability to Wales, and we welcome that. The Welsh Assembly will have secondary legislation powers, but they could be stronger. No doubt in time devolution will strengthen those powers. The functions of the Assembly will reflect those of the Welsh Office, including powers over education. The Secretary of State mentioned nursery vouchers. Most Welsh local authorities had more than 90 per cent. of their children in nursery education when nursery vouchers were forced on us. That is why they were nonsense. We need to discuss powers over transport, agriculture, the environment and industry.
I have always been intrigued by the fact that powers over transport in Wales, especially the railways, have been exercised by the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that the Minister will explain that when he sums up. I have always felt frustrated that we have not been able to influence transport policy sufficiently and I hope that the Minister will explain the powers that the Welsh Assembly will have over transport.
It is logical that powers over foreign affairs, macro-economics, defence, taxation and social security should remain at Westminster. Primary legislation powers will also, for the moment, remain at Westminster. I hesitate to raise the issues of the police and broadcasting. I do not understand why broadcasting is outside the remit of the Welsh Assembly, because there is a strong case for bringing it in. We want strong local government, and the Secretary of State has emphasised that he will not take powers from local government. He will be held to account for that statement in future years, and I trust that he means what he says and that local government will be strengthened by the transfer of powers from the quangos.
Local government has had a rough time in recent years, and many able people have not thought it worth their while to stand for election to local government. Local councillors have been like eunuchs, who were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in a different context, because the Conservatives took so many powers from local councils.
Another matter I wish to address is the number of seats in the Assembly. We know that the Labour party started out with a model of 80 seats for the Assembly, but that
1152
figure has now been whittled down to 60, which does not enable a good enough system of proportional representation to be put in place. That will be the subject of substantial debate later on, when we achieve a yes vote.
There is a case for having more seats elected by PR: it has been calculated that the correct ratio of seats would be 40 elected directly to 35 elected by PR. That would give the Assembly much better proportionality in terms of geography, political party and gender. If the inclusiveness that has been spoken of is not merely rhetoric, but sincerely meant, the principle would be better served by having more seats in the Assembly.
The reception of the White Paper in Wales has been interesting. It provides much food for thought and, as its implications are digested, there is a gathering enthusiasm for it. However, recognition of the issue of rural Wales is important. After the announcement of the economic powerhouse, with the demise of the Development Board for Rural Wales, there was a feeling of great unease in mid-Wales. Welsh Office Ministers would be well advised to continue doing what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), started to do in his instructions and address to the staff of the DBRW at the Royal Welsh show in my constituency this week. He has started well, and I am sure that he will take on board the DBRW's concerns and translate them into positive action to ensure that rural Wales is properly administered in terms of economic development. I know that he wants to do that, but a great deal of work is required.
The powerhouse Welsh Development Agency proposals for four divisions really split rural Wales. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have noticed that, this week at the Royal Welsh show, the Institute of Welsh Affairs announced a paper relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy and the problems of rural areas. We know that the objective 5b areas will suffer a demise by 1999 and that objective 2 is being introduced. That needs special attention. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has stated clearly that there is a need for a rural development agency, and on Wednesday it repeated that such an agency was needed over and above the proposed four divisions of the powerhouse agency.
The Government should not be afraid to devolve power within Wales. They are right to have a policy that devolves power from Westminster to Wales. Given the difficult infrastructure within Wales, although some of the problems can be overcome by using information technology, I am sure that the Government will recognise the need to devolve powers within Wales, and they should not be afraid of doing so.
Mr. Martin Caton: The hon. Gentleman surely knows better than anyone that the Development Board for Rural Wales has not served all of rural Wales, but only mid-Wales. As an observer of its work, I have been impressed, but also jealous that we in rural areas not covered by the DBRW did not benefit from that service. It is to be hoped that the new powerhouse agency, with its rural function, will ensure that we get the same quality of service as other rural parts of Wales.
Mr. Livsey: I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) supporting the ideas and principles of the DBRW. Sadly that was not the historical view of representatives of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and

1153
some of the counties of north Wales when the DBRW was formed. They did not want to join it, but the DBRW's track record proves that it has exercised its powers successfully, and that is a reason for reform. The DBRW was pushed by past Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament: Jim Griffiths, the first Secretary of State for Wales, was very keen, as was Cledwyn Hughes, another Secretary of State for Wales, along with Emlyn Hooson, Peter Garbett Edwards of the board and, of course, Emrys Roberts.
We must not forget that the DBRW was brought into being because of 100 years of depopulation in rural Wales, which was a serious problem. Five local authorities in central Wales agreed, so the DBRW was formed. The Highlands and Islands development board in Scotland was founded for similar reasons. I do not know what is to happen in Scotland but, given that the Highlands and Islands development board area has objective 1 status, I would guess that it will remain. In terms of policy and recognition—especially within the European Union—that has a kick back to Wales.
The whole topic needs careful consideration. I do not want a rural committee of the Welsh Assembly to be set up only to find that many of the decisions that it should address have been set in concrete before it can debate them. That is a somewhat worrying prospect.
Youth depopulation in rural Wales continues to be a problem. In many of the rural counties, elderly people over the age of 65 constitute 22 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the population. The new problem in rural Wales is one of population exchange; young people leave and older people come in, resulting in an imbalance of economically active people. That needs to be addressed.
In many parts of rural Wales, up to 25 per cent. of the population are involved in agriculture, either directly or indirectly. Reform of the common agricultural policy will therefore be a major issue over the next five years. In the past 10 days, the President of the European Commission, Jacques Santer, has issued an agenda 2000 paper that contains serious problems for areas such as rural Wales.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe that there is a need for a Welsh Assembly. The rejection of the Tory agenda at the last general election means that they are disqualified from telling us what to do. The status quo went out at that election. The Liberal Democrats would go further than Labour's proposals, but we regard them as an interim measure and a useful step towards a better governed Wales. There is a philosophical chasm between the parties who were elected to represent Wales on 1 May and the Tories who were chucked out. The voice of Wales has been heard, and I believe that it will endorsed on 18 September by a resounding yes vote.
11.28 am
Mr. Denzil Davies: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I hope that, now that the White Paper has been published, and in the short time available between now and the referendum, we can have a reasonably balanced debate. Until now, the debate outside this place has been mainly characterised by verbal abuse, and I am sorry to say that most of that abuse has come from members of what is described as the yes campaign.
1154
The case for an Assembly and for the White Paper is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, a case for better democracy in the governance of Wales. My right hon. Friend went a bit far when he implied that democracy and cronyism do not sometimes lie together. A long time ago, I spent two years at the university of Chicago, where Mayor Daley—a true Democrat—was in charge of that great city. He would not have subscribed to my right hon. Friend's view. It is possible to say also that Tammany hall was a product of democracy.
The argument is, as it was in 1979, for better democracy in the governance of Wales and in fulfilling the functions presently carried out by the Welsh Office and by the quango state. If it stopped there, it would be easy—we are all in favour of democracy—but it does not. There are constitutional consequences, be they good or bad, of having a Welsh Assembly. There are consequences for the position of Wales in Britain which go beyond the arguments about democracy.
It is necessary—I hope that people will do this—to balance improvements in Welsh democracy with the constitutional consequences for Wales. The referendum was lost in 1979 because the Welsh people were not sufficiently convinced of the benefits of democracy when set against their real fears of the consequences for Wales within Britain. These proposals are not so different, although they go further in some respects because of the need for greater democracy.
There will be changes in the relationship between Wales and Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that sovereignty will remain in Westminster, and of course it will. He also says that those matters will evolve. Legal sovereignty can remain as a shell while the political realities move ahead, and there are examples in history of that. If we have an Assembly, a new generation of Welsh people will look less to the political institutions of Britain and more towards the new institutions that we are creating in Wales.
My generation is very loyal to our language and culture, but we tend to look towards Britain and its institutions, including this House of Commons. Previous generations did the same, and perhaps the next generation after ours will also do the same but, if we make this change, future generations will look less to Britain and more towards the institutions of Wales. The House of Commons will become less important in the life of Wales—that is the reality. It is not a question of arid legal sovereignty, as the Scottish White Paper shows clearly.
The Scottish White Paper goes further—I accept that—and comes to the conclusion that there should be fewer Scottish Members in this House. That is supposed to address the West Lothian question—although it does not—which does not apply in Wales. It is an attempt to address the point that, once Scottish legislation is taken away, Scottish Members will have less to do in this House. I am not advocating that the number of Welsh Members should be reduced because the Welsh proposals do not go as far as those for Scotland, but this House and its Members will become less important in Wales as a result of the changes. That is a constitutional and practical fact.
The other day, I was successful in acquiring an Adjournment debate on the finances of the Dyfed Powys health authority, to which the Under—Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend

1155
(Mr. Griffiths), replied so well—as he always does. I do not want to make a niggling point but, in future, such a debate would not take place here because the Minister would not be accountable—assuming that he was still a Minister, which he probably would not be, although through no fault of his own—for the finances of the Dyfed Powys health authority. Accountability would lie where the money was—at the Welsh Assembly.
I am making a trite observation, but a host of matters—health, education, transport and others—will go from here. We may still have Welsh Questions, but other matters will go to the Assembly, and Wales will look less to us and to the institutions of Britain. There will be a constitutional shift. It may not seem to be a seismic shift, but it is a shift that we have to recognise and either reject or accept, depending on our point of view.
I am sorry to bring the subject of Europe into the debate, but there is a difference with 1979. Europe was not such an issue in 1979. Over the past few years, I have detected that Welsh politicians have looked far more to Europe than they did during the 1979 referendum. Indeed, the Welsh chattering classes— [Interruption.] They do exist, and I could tell the House where they live. I can see some of them when I look around this Chamber. However, I am referring to a different breed of Welsh chattering class, which lives in Wales. The Welsh chattering classes are very keen on Wales in Europe. They write learned articles and books about a new kind of sub-tribe known as "Welsh Europeans". We know where they live, as well.
The Welsh Europeans are a new group—they are not Welsh British. Britain is seen as a declining entity. I see some of my hon. Friends nodding at that. The European factor was not an issue in 1979. The gaze of the Welsh political establishment—and, perhaps, of a minority in Welsh society—has moved away from British institutions and towards Europe. Wales is seen as a European nation, and I shall come to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and his party in a moment. They believe that, as the British nation is controlled by the 'orrible English, we must look to Europe.
The Welsh-European project, as I like to call it, is not just a project of the hon. Member for Caernarfon and his hon. Friends. If it were so, one would not refer to it, as his party is a fringe group. The project of looking to Europe rather than to Britain has reached even the highest echelons of the Labour party in Wales. Those concerned are still a minority, but a pretty influential one.
We must add to the situation the mirror-image in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will be more powerful and will look even less to the House of Commons and to Britain. Scotland also will look more towards Europe than Wales will because of its history, its legal system and its connection with Europe.
When we put all those factors together, if we go through with devolution, we shall see that it is a question not of sovereignty, but, if I may use corporate jargon, of a substantial unbundling of the British unitary state—or, as The Guardian now describes it, the "British state". Sovereignty can reside here, and of course it will, but devolution is bound to lead to the unbundling of the present unitary state. We must ask ourselves again, in a reasoned way, whether that is to the benefit of Wales.
The unbundling of the British state does not just mean that Wales will be loosened from England; it means that England will be loosened from Wales. That is not often
1156
mentioned in our debates, but the relationship between Wales and England will change. Mr. Gwynfor Evans, who used to be leader of Plaid Cymru and Member of Parliament for the constituency next to mine, used to say that a federal system was not suitable for Britain. His main reason for saying that was that England was too large, relative to Scotland and Wales, to create a federal system.
I did not often agree with Mr. Evans, whom I respected as a patriot and a very learned man, but I believe that he was right about that. He then argued—I did not agree with this—for a kind of confidence in the European Union, in the days before the European Union, when even Plaid Cymru had decided that it would be in favour of it.
However, as we see the unbundling of Britain, we shall see a semi-federal Britain, with England becoming increasingly conscious of itself, as Wales and Scotland become more and more conscious of themselves. To use again some corporate managerial language, the relationships between those countries will take on a new transparency. What worries me is that the new transparency may have a bad effect on Wales, which is by far the poorest country of the three that make up Britain.
I should like to mention public expenditure, although I know that it is boring. I do not want the hon. Member for Caernarfon jumping up, because I shall not give way to him. I have heard his arguments on this subject and they are pretty poor.
Mr. Wigley: We have heard yours, too.
Mr. Davies: The two of us can sit down and discuss this matter on another occasion.
Wales does not raise enough taxation to finance its present level of public expenditure. Indeed, the gap is £5 billion to £6 billion every year.
Mr. Wigley: What a load of rubbish.
Mr. Davies: Those figures are produced by the Welsh Office. The hon. Gentleman is a friend of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and has had several dinners and discussions with him.
May I put this matter in context? I hate to bring up the Maastricht treaty, but this means a borrowing requirement of 15 per cent. of GDP, which no country in the western world could sustain. Wales therefore is in an extremely difficult position. Scotland may not be in the same position and is perhaps able to balance its books, but £5 billion to £6 billion each year have to be transferred to Wales from the British state.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is worried enough to set out in the White Paper what is called "the Barnett formula", which has now taken on great importance. I am second to none in my respect for my former Treasury colleague, Lord Barnett. The formula existed even before he put his name to it. The implication is that the formula will somehow protect Wales in terms of public expenditure.
Frankly, I do not believe that such a formula can survive for long the unbundling of Britain, because it is the consequence of a unitary state. It could not survive a semi-federal system with far greater transparency and with each constituent nation of that system looking at

1157
matters much more closely. I refer particularly to England, because the money comes only from England, not from Scotland or Ireland.
The Barnett formula is not entrenched in legislation; it is only a formula. Actually, it is only a rule of thumb to make matters easier for Chief Secretaries. It could probably be changed by a Chancellor, and certainly by a Cabinet. What kind of Cabinet would it be? Would it include the Secretary of State for Scotland? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not here. If he were, he may have been able to tell us. Over the past six to nine months, I have been diligently reading The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, as it used to be called, and I am not sure whether there would be a Secretary of State for Scotland for long under the new arrangements. He might be there, but sitting just inside the door.
Foreseeing that problem the other day, one Scottish academic suggested that the Secretary of State should now be called the Secretary of State for territorial areas—shades almost of colonialism there—to protect the smaller British nations against the dreadful English. He suggested that the Secretary of State for territorial areas should be Scottish, but such a suggestion is only natural coming from somebody in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be in the Cabinet, although perhaps close to the table. We are not sure how much power he would have. I have no doubt that he would fight hard for Wales, as he always does. It would be a mostly English Cabinet, rather than the current Cabinet with a unitary British state.
I fear for Wales as a small country that cannot, in those circumstances, defend itself. The Scots may be able to cope—we know that the English can—but the Welsh will have lost much of their power. What happens if the Barnett formula is thrown overboard with the new fashion of balancing budgets, and of putting bankers in charge of stability of public finances? Would the funding gap be allowed to remain? I should be surprised if it would. Who would protect Wales and my constituents?
Mr. Martyn Jones: We would.
Mr. Davies: The Welsh are marvellous people, but the English are ruthless. When a country starts to look solely at its own interests, it tends to become ruthless, but let us not pursue that argument now. I fear for Wales and I am entitled to do so, and those matters must be debated and considered.
Against all those problems we must set the democratic benefits of the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been extremely bold with regard to the Welsh Office. I did not believe that he would do so, but he has almost put himself out of a job. Not many people in this insecure, global economy would deliberately put themselves out of a job, although he has not quite done so. He is still just inside the Cabinet Room sitting at a little desk—whether he is sitting at the table, I do not know—and he has transferred powers, which are no longer debated, to a Welsh Assembly.
Having paid my right hon. Friend that compliment, a blow punch is coming: he has been extremely weak on quangos. I did not say that there should be a bonfire of
1158
quangos—I did not know what that meant—because quangos perform a useful function, which must be carried out by somebody. If by "a bonfire of quangos", he meant a bonfire of the boards of quangos, I would be with him. However, he did not mean that. Yet, as I understand it from a newspaper article, he agreed that that could be done by this House. Of course it could. The boards of the 10 or 11 major executive quangos could be abolished through the devolution Bill.
We are told that this House is still sovereign in those matters, so why on earth should not the boards of the quangos be abolished and their functions performed by the new Assembly's committees? I do not understand why that cannot be done by legislation in this sovereign Parliament. I am sure that it could and should be done, but I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend has run away from it. I do not know why he has run away. We have heard various reasons, such as that it will be done by the Assembly—but the Assembly will not have primary legislation powers. What about those terrible royal charters? People say, "Oh, you can't touch royal charters." Of course we can—we can do anything we like in this place. My right hon. Friend has accepted that.
My right hon. Friend has missed a great opportunity to reform the quango state in Wales and to do it now. Sadly and unfortunately, the Welsh establishment—I shall not call it the chattering classes—still has its bottom firmly on the Consolidated Fund of quangos, drawing its money.
It is a balancing act, and it forms the basis of the debates that I hope that we shall have over the next month to six weeks. On the one hand is greater democracy, but on the other is the change in the constitutional relationship between Wales and Britain and, perhaps more importantly, between England and Wales.
11.51 am
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I listened with great care, as I always do, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). His speeches are often intelligent, informative and coherent—but today was not one of his best efforts.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Oh, yes, it was.
Mr. Jones: All the nods of assent come from the Tory Benches.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli comes from a fine tradition in Welsh politics. The problem is that he has failed to recognise the Wales of 1997; he has recognised, possibly, the Wales of 1979. The debate has moved forward considerably since then. He represents—it is an honourable position for him, although I disagree with it fundamentally—the opinion that sovereignty resides in one place and one place alone. He must accept that, since 1979, sovereignty has moved. He may not like that, but it has happened. Indeed, it has moved fundamentally. We need to ensure that people's participation in democracy is at the appropriate level for them. All we are doing when talking about constitutional change to Wales is completing the picture.
When I put that point to the Prime Minister on his return from Amsterdam, he acknowledged that power must shift and be as close to the people as possible. We recognise that power has gone to the European Union in certain areas, but Members on both sides of the House

1159
must also recognise that people have been alienated from the democratic process to such an extent that a whole generation of young people have not voted since 1979. They have a right to be heard, and they will be heard when the referendum comes in September.
We have heard speeches from two long-standing Labour Members highlighting the shortcomings of the White Paper and reaching one conclusion. I come to the debate from another direction. I acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the White Paper, but it is fair to point out that the Secretary of State announced his proposals for Wales on the basis that he was looking for inclusive politics. He wanted to ensure that all the Members voted in by the people of Wales on 1 May were part of a constructive debate.
My party has made it perfectly clear that it wants to be part of a constructive debate. The Secretary of State and his colleagues are aware of our view that this is an historic opportunity for Wales to achieve a measure of democratic accountability the like of which our country has never before seen. We want a much stronger body—we make no bones about that; it is our stated position—a body similar to that proposed for Scotland.
Mr. Shepherd: The secession party.
Mr. Jones: It is not the secession party. I have never argued for separation and I never will. I want that to be on the record. I believe that the relationship between Wales and the remainder of the United Kingdom and the European Union must be considered positively and constructively.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I am not giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] What I find rather strange in the context of this debate is the alliance between certain Labour Members and Conservative Members.
Mr. Shepherd: A British alliance.
Mr. Jones: There was a message to the Conservative party on 1 May when the Welsh people spoke. They rejected the Conservative party—
Mr. Evans: How well did you do?
Mr. Jones: I have never seen Ribble Valley on the map of Wales.
We must examine carefully the relationship between what is contained in the White Paper and the future as we see it for Wales. There is an opportunity for us to have, for the first time, a Welsh-elected body. Although it will have the powers that we would wish it to have, it will be a body that will be able to speak for Wales.
I recognise that the White Paper makes a significant commitment to the strengthening of Wales's relationship with Europe, and that is important. It is a concept that is of interest to a great many and not only to academics. Farmers and others living in rural Wales want Wales to have a clear voice within the institutions of Europe, and within the next three years there will be significant changes to that economy.
1160
We recognise that support is given to our farmers and agriculture generally through the European Union and the common agricultural policy. We recognise also that there will be changes to the way in which the common agricultural policy operates, and we must remember that they will have profound implications for the rural economy. It is right in the context of the forthcoming changes that a Welsh voice is heard clearly. I agree with the point made by the Secretary of State in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that we shall be seeing Welsh influence for the first time and in a clear way in the institutions of Europe.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made a third point about structural funding, which is an important part of sustaining the rural economy. I think that we all agree that the rural economy is fragile. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli about that. It is an economy that needs to be supported. At the same time, we must remember the contribution that structural funds make to defending the rural economy. It is vital in the context of future changes that there is a strong and clear Welsh voice in the institutions of the EU.
Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech. A very long article of his was printed in yesterday's edition of the Western Mail. I am sure that he will have other opportunities to contribute to the debate.
Any Welsh elected body needs to be an inclusive body. It needs to include shades of opinion that are reflected in the House, even with members of the Conservative party standing for election to the Assembly. One of the most remarkable statements that I have heard from the Conservative Front Bench, as the Conservative party joins the no campaign, is that Conservatives will be standing for the Assembly. Of course they will, once the Assembly or whatever it is called is set up. It is right that they will be standing for such a body. As I have said, it is a body that should reflect all shades of political opinion in Wales. It is important that it is inclusive.
The proportional element that is included in the voting system is important. I recognise that what is proposed does not go as far as the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru would want, but an important statement about the nature of inclusive politics has been heralded by Welsh Office Ministers, and they should be complimented on that.
The establishment of regional committees is an important recognition of the fact that different parts of Wales have different needs. Within an inclusive body, there may be different priorities for different parts of Wales. There may be different views about different things. The regional committees will provide an opportunity for various parts of Wales, whether it be the north or the west, to scrutinise more effectively the work of various bodies. That will be a considerable step forward.
It is important that we recognise that, if Wales does not take the opportunity to move ahead, it will be left behind. I do not recognise the dangers that are put forward by

1161
those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench. We hear what they say about the disaster that will befall Wales if the people vote yes on 18 September. I recognise, however, a Wales that could be left behind. It is obvious to me that the Scots will vote for a Parliament. I cannot conceive of a position where the people of London would not vote for a regional assembly. Once there is a regional body in London, I cannot conceive of the people of the north-west or north-east of England not wanting their own regional assemblies. What is the future for Wales in that context? Wales has a real opportunity to begin the process of constitutional change. My party will, as ever, play a constructive part in that debate.
12.4 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) in saying that this is an historic day for Wales. To try to assess its significance and to find a precedent, I refer to the debates in 1831 on the eve of the Reform Act 1832. The Whigs were on one side and the Tories were on the other. For the Whigs, Grey said:
"The right of the people is to good government."
Wellington, replying for the Conservative Government, said that he was
"totally unprepared with any plan"
for parliamentary reform, and added that
"he would go further, and say that he had never … heard of any measure … which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large … He was fully convinced that the country possessed at the present moment a legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever had answered in any country whatever. … He would go still further and say that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a legislature of any country … he did not mean to assert that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence".
That change came 1832 after the great Wig victory, and the change now is 1997 after the great Labour victory. The equivalent of Old Sarum and the rotten boroughs before the reforms of 1832 is the quangocracy that was built upon and used by the Conservative Government.
Mr. Rowlands: I remind my hon. Friend that the 1831 Reform Bill led to the Merthyr riots, when the vast majority of working-class people in Merthyr found that they were not included in the Bill.
Mr. Anderson: It was the start of a process of reform that led to the present position. Opposition Members may have been on the side of the Tories in 1831, but I would have been on the side of the Whigs. Certainly the people of Wales would have been on the side of the Whigs in that debate on the great Reform Act 1832, and they have shown where they stand now by electing parties that support devolution.
I support with excitement what the Secretary of State said. I broadly support his propositions on greater democracy, accountability and greater inclusiveness in the Welsh political system. Of course we shall argue about details, but the essential debate is about whether we want progress and greater accountability in Wales—and this is
1162
the only show in town—or whether we want to keep the present system of quangocracy that has stifled movement towards a greater Welsh identity.
The Conservatives follow Wellington, as they did in 1831, and apparently believe that our system has achieved such a plateau of perfection that we cannot move forward. That was their position then, and it is their position now: the status quo and no further. If, as seems likely, Wales votes for reform, it will be interesting to see whether Conservatives Members adjust their position.
I also follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in saying that sovereignty now is a different concept from what it was in the latter part of the 19th century in the writings of Dicey and others. Sovereignty is now shared. At the time when Dicey was elaborating his own position of sovereignty, who would have thought that we would choose to give up sovereignty to NATO in a key area such as defence? Who would have thought that sovereignty would now be shared at different tiers, with some sovereignty going to European institutions, some to Westminster and a proposed degree of shared sovereignty at regional level?
So I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I do so as a member of what was called in the 1970s the gang of six. Six members of my party echoed dissent and worked against the then proposals for devolution, for some good and some bad reasons. Much has changed since then, as I shall attempt to show. Three members of the gang of six—Fred Evans, Joan Evans and Ifor Davies—have since died. Leo Abse recently celebrated his 80th birthday. There was another man called Neil Kinnock—I am not sure where he is now. I remain as the sole representative in the House of that group. I have changed my views, and I want to tell the House why.
First, I believe that Governments should be accountable. I believe in the dispersal of power, one key feature of which is some greater move towards regionalism. The record of the Thatcher Administration was one of centralisation and of removing the intermediary bodies—the corps intermédiare—which acted as a diffusing structure between Westminster, Whitehall and the people. Mrs. Thatcher was, for me and for many in Wales, the great persuader. We saw the elimination or neutering of some of the bodies that stood between the state and the citizen such as local government and the trade unions. The Greater London council was abolished. The Government even made attacks on the BBC.
Regional assemblies are healthy in themselves and allow the proper expression of local views. They are a healthy check on Governments, as they are in Europe. It is Europe which is the second persuader. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) properly said, in 1979 Europe hardly figured in the debate. There are two elements to the European dimension. One is the vitality of the European regions. We in Wales talk of linkage with the motor regions of Europe. Catalonia, Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy and so on all have the vitality

1163
that an elected Assembly brings. We cannot have proper linkage with those regions unless we have an Assembly. I also think of the Atlantic arc.
Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that what is proposed in the White Paper is not what exists in Spain and Catalonia? The autonomous committees in Spain have political and financial autonomy, and legislative powers.
Mr. Anderson: There is no exact precedent, but each of our European partners has a degree of regionalism that we do not have. For example, in Spain there is devolution a la carte. Catalonia has a degree of autonomy that Valencia has not, because there is greater demand for it. In Germany, Saxony and other lander may push for greater control under the constitution. There are other examples. My hon. Friend cannot dispute that there is greater healthy and vital regionalism in all our partner countries. Yet Catalonia is still an essential part of Spain.
The second element is the maximisation of Welsh impact at Brussels level. Time presses, so I shall simply commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the report recently published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, which suggested various means by which we in Wales could seek to maximise our impact. Many of those suggestions are covered in the White Paper.
The third element is the threats to and the importance of Welsh identity. The Welsh culture should be encouraged, not eliminated. The White Paper provides for that by its inclusive theme. The electoral system of proportional representation will ensure a greater coming together within Wales. I hear what the Opposition say about the Assembly being based on the Euro-constituencies, which may be abolished, but that is a quibble. The essence of the Euro-constituencies is that they are an agglomeration of Westminster seats, and remain so whatever the pattern of future European elections. I am pleased about that, and also about the regional committees within the Assembly's proposed structure.
Increasingly, an imbalance has developed within the Welsh economic and social structure in which the south-east in relation to the rest of Wales occupies a position not unlike that of the south-east of England in relation to the rest of England. The Welsh regional committees within the Assembly structure could help to counter that imbalance. The effect of the Tories' attachment to the status quo is to separate them decisively from the prevailing mood in Wales.
I shall end on two general and fundamental points. I could make many detailed criticisms of the proposals, in the same way as I criticised proposals in the 1970s. I could raise bogeys such as the Welsh language and north against the south. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) demeaned himself by seeking to do that. I have more faith in the good sense of the Welsh people.
The essence of the Tory claim is that the proposals could lead to the fragmentation of the United Kingdom. Who can forget the Tory platform at the general election? They were little Englanders abroad and the English national party at home. It is clear that our European partner countries practise a regionalism that has not led to their fragmentation. It is wholly patronising to tell the Welsh people that we do not have the political sophistication that allows the people of Germany, France and Spain vital regional assemblies that do not lead to the dissolution of the sovereignty of those countries.
1164
In the United Kingdom, alas, we do not plan our constitutional changes. We drift, or we walk crablike, along the path of constitutional change. The proposals for Wales can only be an interim constitutional settlement. The English problem—that is to say, the size of England in terms of a possible federation—will remain.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, I must press on.
Eventually, we shall have to recast the United Kingdom as a whole, and perhaps move to a quasi-federal state, but that is not a matter for today's debate. The proposals are welcome, but only as a first step. In Tuesday's exchanges on the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke about a mystery tour. Any new constitutional advance can be a sort of mystery tour. When we joined the European Union, no one could say with certainty what lay at the end of the road, but to use such an argument is to speak against change in itself.
I recall the fine story of a Welsh mystery tour by bus from Cwmrhydyceirw in my constituency. There was a sweep about where the tour would end, and it is said that the driver won. The people of Wales are driving this mystery tour. They will decide the pace and the direction, and I have confidence in our people.
12.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have been asked to be brief, and I shall therefore confine myself to one topic and shall not go into the details of the proposal.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government on their tactical skill. They have taken advantage of the notorious lack of public interest in the details of government and have used their huge temporary majority to impose a dangerous deception on the people of England. How can the Government claim that their current proposals are of interest only to the 15 per cent. or so of the electorate to be found within the boundaries of Scotland and Wales?
The Prime Minister's preface to the White Paper makes the Government's strategy entirely clear: there is to be a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, an elected mayor and new strategic authority for London, more accountability in the regions of England, and a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. The key point from all this is that the people of England are directly affected by the Welsh and Scottish proposals, and the people of England should be part of the referendum.
Mr. Grieve: Has my hon. Friend noted how, in the Scottish White Paper on devolution, the word "England" does not feature? The future of this country is apparently a new entity called Wales, Scotland and the regions.
Mr. Rowe: That is part of my concern.
Because the proposals directly affect the way in which the United Kingdom Parliament works, it is an obscenity that we in England should have no part in the referendums. The proposals affect the powers and the position of a UK Cabinet Minister—in fact, in relation to

1165
Scotland, they affect the position of more than one. They affect the accountability and scrutiny powers of the UK Parliament.
It seems probable, if the Welsh vote for the proposal, that the proposals will, for example, affect the size of the social security bill. If the Assembly is given powers to alter the uniform business rate, it may adopt policies that will lead to some companies leaving Wales, thus putting up the social security bill—which will, of course, be met from the UK Parliament.
The proposals change the electoral system in the UK, with the clear intention of ultimately changing it throughout the nation, yet the English are to have no say in the proposals. The Government cannot take the first effectively irreversible steps along a road that will for ever change the way in which the UK Parliament works and base their claim to public support on a referendum from which some 85 per cent. of the electorate are excluded.
It is clever, all right, in a tactical, short-term, anything-for-a-Labour victory way, which is the hallmark of the Government, but it is potentially lethal. It will create a slow-burn, long-term anger and division, which could tear the United Kingdom apart.
I confess that I do not know yet exactly where I stand on all the ramifications of the proposals—but nor, of course, do the Government. The White Paper is shot through with concordats to be published later, reviews on local taxation and capping powers, and compacts with the voluntary sector, for example. As one of the Secretary of State's colleagues, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), so eloquently put it, we are being asked to join "a mystery tour" whose destination remains unknown, even to its promoters.
In election after election, almost all UK parties have campaigned on the belief that most people, faced with a choice between peace and prosperity, and the impoverishment that follows blind support for atavistic prejudice, will choose the former. In one part of the UK, as the new Government are learning daily, that is already not the case.
I confess to being somewhat frightened now about the rest of the United Kingdom. In its mad rush to reshape this nation root and branch, will new Labour unleash nationalistic forces that the Union has traditionally kept under control for centuries, to the benefit of us all, and find itself eventually unable to control them? The strategists of new Labour may be offering my party a poisoned chalice. They are creating the conditions in which a Conservative party, already in some danger of an exaggerated fear of the European Union, could seek populist advantage in fuelling English nationalism.
I pray that we shall resist any such temptation—for we can see in one part of the United Kingdom how hard it is to set such emotions at rest once they have been aroused. I believe that the Labour Government are setting the scene for a similar scenario by refusing the English any say in these momentous decisions.
New Labour's insouciant willingness to accept that it does not know how its revolution will eventually develop chills my blood. If London has an elected mayor, will Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and York be prepared to do without? What are the implications for
1166
English local authorities? If the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament—which are unaccountable to the United Kingdom Parliament in any serious way—take decisions that result in higher costs, will England and Northern Ireland be willing to pay for them?
If the Government think that they will be allowed to rely in future on Scottish or Welsh Members of Parliament to shape the education service in Kent, they will ignite an anger that will eventually impoverish us all.
I do not claim that there should be no change in our electoral or government arrangements. A world in which the economy is global, competition is fierce and universal, capital free to move where it will, and massive trading blocks dominate, demands that we change our arrangements. However, I object to the arrogance and the speed with which the Government have moved, and to their extraordinary assumption that the English and the Northern Irish should have nothing to say in the fundamental referendums to be held in six weeks.
The Government seem to believe that regional referendums in England are all that the English require. In my view, they are absolutely wrong. If Scotland votes for a Parliament and Wales for an inferior Assembly, the English equivalent is Westminster. We do not want south-east education service or a midlands national health service: we want an English Parliament, located where it has always been—in Westminster. As a result of the changes proposed in Wales and Scotland, there would be no place for Scottish or Welsh Members in debates about those matters.
The Secretary of State for Wales sits smirking in his seat, but there will be considerable anger in England if the shape of English education or the national health service is determined by Members of Parliament who, in every other way, exclude the English from taking decisions on similar matters in their regions. The Government are clever in trying to finesse this demand by making their programme of balkanisation a rolling process, with each decision confined to a tiny part of the total electorate.
Mr. Livsey: If the hon. Gentleman were a Welsh Member of Parliament, how would he feel about seeing the decisions to which he has referred made by English Members for the past 100 years? We seek only justice and democracy—and that is proposed in the White Paper.
Mr. Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give up the right of Welsh Members to take decisions on behalf of the English? That is all I am asking. The Government's proposals will not do. I urge the Government and the entire nation—not just the Scots and the Welsh—to pause before rushing headlong to taking decisions in a mere six weeks that will shape the nation for the next 100 years.
12.28 pm
Mr. Chris Ruane: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech on such an important day for Wales, when we are discussing the referendum and a Welsh Assembly.
I am a new Member of Parliament in a new seat. It is composed of parts of three former seats—Clwyd, North-West, Clwyd, South-West and Delyn. I pay tribute to my three predecessors: my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones)

1167
and the former Member for Clwyd, North-West, Mr. Rod Richards. I have followed their progress over the years, through the local press and in Hansard. Each had qualities that I can learn from, as a new Member.
Mr. Richards was a tenacious and passionate fighter for the policies that he believed in. I did not share his belief in those policies, but he fought his corner. Some of those policies, such as nursery vouchers, were unpopular, and were rejected by the Welsh people. However, he was a party player, who played his full role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South has taught me the importance of specialising in a subject early in a parliamentary career. In his case, it was agriculture. He has concentrated his time, resources and energy on it, to the benefit not just of his constituents but of the whole country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn has shown me the importance of treating constituents with respect. In the past Parliament, he answered 60,000 letters personally. That is a mark of his dedication.
Many Members stress the beauty of their constituency in their maiden speech. I can say, hand on heart, that my constituency is beautiful. That is official, since a large part of it lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty, along the Clwydian range. Towns such as Cwm, Rhuallt, Llandyrnog, Bodfari and Tremeirchion dot the beautiful landscape.
Tremeirchion has a large Jesuit college called St. Bueno's. I have often attended mass there, and my daughter Seren was christened there two years ago by Father Damian Jackson. The Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins studied there in the last century. When he walked along the Clwydian range, he was inspired by the beauty before him. His poem, "The Vale of Elwy"—the Elwy is a tributary of the River Clwyd—contains the lines:
"Lovely the woods, meadows, combes and vales All the air things that build this world of Wales."
Anyone who has walked that route along the Clwydian range will share the opinions expressed in that poem.
There are other beautiful towns in my constituency, including Dyserth, in the shadow of Hiraddug mountain, and Meliden, nestled into Craig Fawr mountain. The city of St. Asaph boasts a cathedral and Bodelwyddan a marble church.
The two largest towns in my constituency are Rhyl and Prestatyn, containing 66 per cent. of the population. Both have faced difficulties in the past 20 years, with the decline of the traditional seaside holiday. The people of those towns are proud and industrious, facing the changes with fortitude. The advent of a new Labour Government, believing in justice, jobs, investment, education and training, will help my constituents to gain the skills they need to face the new millennium.
The last two towns that I wish to mention provide a link with the business under discussion today. They are Rhuddlan and Denbigh. Both have castles built by Edward I in the 13th century. With a minimum amount of popular support in Wales, Edward I followed an aggressively expansionist policy against the people of Wales. He wished to dominate Wales from his centre of power in London. He did so by building an iron ring of castles around north Wales, including those at Rhuddlan and Denbigh.
1168
Edward I was an obvious role model for some 20th-century rulers—Queen Margaret of Finchley, honest John of Huntingdon and their henchman, the young pretender, Prince William of Richmond. During their rule, their stranglehold in Wales was achieved not by castles, but by quangos-80 of them stuffed with lords, ladies and barons loyal to the party line. They were able to wield unaccountable control over our nation's dissatisfied population.
As the erstwhile court jester, Jeremy Hanley, observed in 1994, responding to the blatant appointment of all-Tory boards:
"We want people who are committed to the success of the boards they join. Why should we appoint people who are dedicated to the failure of our reforms and the destruction of these institutions?"
Such arrogance. Members of the boards received their master's patronage. They were rewarded with dowries, some as much as £80,000 a year, and many were rewarded for incompetence. They presided over cuts in services the length and breadth of Wales.
That out-dated mode of political rule belongs to another time. It has failed to deliver what the people of Wales want, which is strong, effective and accountable government. The people of Wales want a system of government that is responsive to their needs and wishes. They want a system of government that can deliver popular policies which will create wealth and prosperity for all and enhance our prestige in the world.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an excellent start in abolishing the quango state in Wales, but we should not rest until every one of the quangos has been either scrapped or brought under democratic control. When the task is complete, when the dust has settled and when the history is written, my right hon. Friend should commission a film on the demise of the quangos in Wales. The title of the film—there could only be one—should be "Last Quango in Powys".
12.35 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on his excellent, witty, fluent and amusing maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear more of him, and I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him.
I live not far from the hon. Member's seat, right on the border; my bottom gate is 50 yd from the Welsh border. I have family connections with Wrexham, a seat that I fought in 1992. I was defeated in a fair fight by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), but I remind the House that 18,114 people agreed with what I was saying, and it is worth remembering that, in the 1997 general election, we got more than 317,000 votes. The Tory voice in Wales should be listened to.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Do the hon. Gentleman's comments mean that the Conservative party has finally accepted the case for proportional representation?
Mr. Paterson: No. I do not want to comment on proportional representation; I want to comment on the White Paper.
Towns such as Wrexham did extremely well under the 18 years of Tory rule. I remember going to Wrexham with my grandmother when I was three or four years old. It

1169
was a grim place with declining steel and coal industries and no future. Now, there is a kaleidoscopic variety of new industries, which is very much due to the system of having a strong Secretary of State for Wales answering to a British Cabinet in London and doing a good job for Wales. I could quote numerous examples. The most obvious is the good work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who brought in 6,500 jobs with the Lucky Goldstar investment, the largest inward investment into Europe.
There has been much talk of the quangos and how to reform the manner in which they are run. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) who, sadly, is not here. The quangos were set up by Parliament and they can be reformed by Parliament. At local level, we have reformed the system of local government and many of my neighbours are delighted that they no longer have a muddling second tier in Mold representing Clwyd; instead, they have a simple system in Wrexham.
Many of the issues in the White Paper could have been devolved to the new simplified system of local government. It is bizarre that we are increasing government and bureaucracy when we want simpler government. The move runs counter to the very reason for the White Paper: that the Government should be near and local to those whom they purport to serve.
What concerns me most, to pick up the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), is that the whole devolution programme presupposes the passive acquiesence of the English. The English, primarily, pay the bills. They constitute 85 per cent. of the population. There is a deficit in Wales. Wales contributes £9.9 billion of the £15.6 billion spent by the Government. That leaves nearly £6 billion, which comes primarily from English taxpayers.
The English are patient, and English nationalism has not yet been stirred. The exercise is primarily one in fudging differences between old and new Labour and in assuaging the demands of Welsh nationalism. The Indians know about partition. There is a very good Indian phrase: he who rides a tiger cannot dismount. We do not know where this tiger is going. It will inevitably lead to divisions and a breakdown of the Union, which was clearly and eloquently described by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
It is absolutely wrong that this Union, which works so well for all of us, in which we all have an equal vote and in which each hon. Member has equal power, should be broken up by a majority vote with no threshold in the two smallest constituent parts. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about fairness. I am alarmed that English nationalism, which is currently passive, may be awakened.
I shall give a very graphic example. Offa's dyke runs through my constituency. King Offa was a great man, who built the enormous construction right down the length of the Welsh border. The boundary should evoke horrible memories for Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies. King Edgar said that, if any Welshman was caught on the wrong side of it, he would be put to death. Harold Harefoot, who was obviously a softy, said
1170
that any Welshman caught would have his hand chopped off. [Interruption.] You are all presuming that the English will remain passive.
Why should my constituents, who welcome the Welsh and trade with them on market day every week, and who have relations in Wales, have an unequal vote? A vote in England will have less value, because agencies in Wales such as the Welsh Development Agency, which canvasses businesses in my constituency, will be responsible to a new, distant and alien organisation—the Assembly in Cardiff—over which I shall have absolutely no say or influence; yet every Welsh Labour Member will retain the right to cross Offa's dyke, at no risk, I am very happy to say, to their heads or hands, to speak on roads, hospitals and schools in England.
To give an even more graphic example, every Welshman receives £690 more from central Government than an Englishman. That cannot be right. You Welsh Members and the Secretary of State are presuming that the English will pay up and play the game. I fear that you may have presumed wrong—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Will the hon. Member refrain from using the word "you"? He is implying that I am involved in his argument.
Mr. Paterson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I looked the Secretary of State in the eye, which provoked the use of the word "you".
That is my final point.
Hon. Members Hear, hear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Paterson: Do not presume on the acquiescence of the English.
12.44 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The patronising character of the speech that we have just heard would make us rabid nationalists very quickly if we heard many more of the kind.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on an amusing speech. He is a refreshing change from his predecessor—my hon. Friend had to pay him compliments, but the rest of us do not. We welcome my hon. Friend, not least because we got rid of someone who, at times, abused the House in his language and personality. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true. My hon. Friend is a wonderful and welcome change. The fact that old and new parliamentarians alike represent seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Vale of Clwyd is an important aspect of our democracy. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who will stand up for his constituents.
Before I make one or two comments on the White Paper, I have something to say to some of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). We should stop peddling the notion that individual Labour Members who dare to criticise the White Paper or who are opposed to devolution—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and, in different ways, my

1171
hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—are, in some way, Tories. I ask Ministers to take a lead in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East lined up with people such as Nick Edwards in 1978 and 1979, but I did not accuse him of being a Tory. I respected his views, and we argued it out honourably. I respect his change of mind, and he should not impugn the motives of people who do not share his views. After all, halfway through the Thatcher period, in 1985, my hon. Friend described Welsh Members who supported devolution as
"sleepwalking … into the constitutional cul-de-sac of devolution, a spectre that haunted the Welsh Labour Party until it was decisively exorcised by the 1979 Referendum."
Let us argue about the issues and the contents of the White Paper, not personalities. We should not describe people who hold different views as crypto-Tories. They are not. They have held their views consistently, and represent a not insignificant percentage of Welsh public feeling. Let us get on with the argument.
I support the White Paper, but I have reservations. One cannot suspend one's personal critical faculties simply because we will have a referendum campaign, so I wish to take this opportunity to mention two important reservations and to ask Ministers how much of the White Paper is written in stone. Is the White Paper the last word, or is it a substantial contribution to the debate that can be revised?
My first point is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales understands. Indeed, we have discussed it from the start. I believe that we have missed a big opportunity to dismantle the quango state. The devolution Bill should dismantle it, but those bits of dismantling that my right hon. Friend has offered us so far are more of a gesture than a serious attempt to address the issue. I do not need to make that case in my terms, because I can make it in his. I cannot think of anyone who has been a more vitriolic—or a more powerful and vehement—critic of the quango state than my right hon. Friend. In his speeches and written contributions he has denounced the quango state. He has used language that would not fall from my lips. He has repeatedly referred to the 180 quangos, the £2.5 billion and the 850 appointees—more than the number of elected councillors—that constitute the quango state.
What concerns me is that I do not see anything like all that being swept away, either between now and 2000 or after 2000. We are being offered the nightmarish prospect of the Assembly sitting down and voting people on and off all the existing quangos. The thought of having to put 800 appointees through the democratic process is a nightmare. I presume that it would be something like the American Senate procedure, with the Assembly in continuous session deciding whether to approve the credentials of the appointees to the various boards accountable to it. The whole concept is a bit of a nightmare, which is why I would greatly prefer the more fundamental approach of doing away with the vast majority of appointees of the character described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
In the spirit in which we have argued this point, I would point out that it was my right hon. Friend, not me, who used terms at which I blanched about the "wasteful", "excessive" and "vast" expenditure on the running costs
1172
of many quangos. On more than one occasion we have implied that much of the cost of our new Welsh Assembly will be financed by considerable savings on those running costs. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) said that in an earlier intervention. I do not foresee our making the sort of savings that would be associated with the words he used—excessive, wasteful and vast—to describe the administrative and running costs of quangos, albeit not the remuneration of staff. I do not envisage those savings emerging from the White Paper's proposals to a time scale that would meaningfully offset the costs of the Assembly.
My right hon. Friend referred to the excessive, wasteful overheads of the Arts Council of Wales and the vast sums spent on the Curriculum Assessment Authority for Wales and the Welsh Language Board. When we hear such language and then read the White Paper, which states that the Arts Council and Sports Council for Wales
"will be invited to suggest amendments to their Charters",
it is not surprising that we notice a difference between rhetoric and action.
My right hon. Friend and I disagree on what can be done about royal charters. I sought advice and was told that an Act of Parliament—a section in a devolution Act—can remove charters, assuming Royal Assent is given. What is not required is grovelling before the boards on our hands and knees, asking them for their consent, which is the inference I draw from the White Paper.
I have one further specific point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider going further. As the debate emerges over the next few weeks in the run-up to the referendum, we shall demonstrate our case far more forcefully if we can say that we will unwind and dismantle the quango state.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the matter he raises is important and I want to deal with it now. Let me assure him that my determination is as strong as it ever was and that the proposals in the White Paper will allow us to achieve that which we want to achieve. All the quangos to which he referred will be made accountable. Many of them will be abolished by the legislation that will follow from these proposals and we are getting rid of nine.
On the question of the charter bodies, I assure my hon. Friend that the advice that he has been given and that given to me is correct and that there is no inconsistency. Paragraph 3.25 of the White Paper refers to the amendment of charters. As he says, as Parliament is sovereign, so Parliament can abolish charters; but the amendment of charters requires action to be initiated by the charter bodies themselves.
Mr. Rowlands: I do not want to get into a lengthy debate. From the number who rose when they thought I was finishing my speech, I am aware of the pressure on time. I hope that the White Paper is not the last word on the issue and that between now and the referendum, we sound more convincing about dismantling the quango state.
I believe that another aspect of the White Paper goes a step too far—the function and role of the Secretary of State. Our judgment on the role of the Secretary of State

1173
should not be clouded by the unrepresentative individuals who have held the post in the past 18 years. We should concentrate on the significance of the office of state and the role that the Secretary of State has played in the past and can play in the future.
Irrespective of who has held the post, one of the great success stories of the past 20 years—led by the office and by the nature of the budget—has been the Secretary of State's role in attracting inward investment. He has been a pivotal force in delivering investment into Wales—double the average for the rest of the country.
Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is right about direct foreign investment, but wrong about gross domestic capital formation—in other words, UK investment into Wales is under-performing.
Mr. Rowlands: I was just about to refer to that distinction. One of the reasons for our success in attracting inward investment has been the role of the Secretary of State alongside the Welsh Development Agency. We must not damage the powerful economic role that a future Secretary of State could play as the voice for Wales outside Wales. I do not see that voice being effective under the White Paper's proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not have a penny of the regional selective assistance budget to use on behalf of Wales. We have all been involved in inward investment in various ways. The flexibility to manipulate funds and to offer competitive packages at short notice has been due to the Secretary of State and the WDA. Frankly, it is not a democratic process—it is the ability to move quickly and to shift funds and make offers swiftly. I cannot see under the structure proposed in the White Paper how a Secretary of State can continue to play this role. He will not have the budget, to start with.
The figures for the regional selective financial assistance budget in a previous White Paper compare the grants offered to overseas companies with those offered to others. It should be a part of a Secretary of State's functions to have a budget equivalent to the regional selective financial assistance that is available to overseas investors, and he should have a powerful economic role. The White Paper will make him something of an economic eunuch, because he will have neither the budget nor the power.
A combination of the Secretary of State with a Welsh inward investment agency working in partnership with a Welsh Assembly could retain and sustain the drive that we have had in inward investment. A key part of the Welsh Office budget, and a key part of any future Secretary of State's role, might be damaged by the White Paper's proposals and may mean that we are unable to create jobs and attract investment at the levels we have enjoyed in recent years.
I invite hon. Members to read these curious and unexplained words in the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend may explain later. Point 2.24 of the White Paper mentions "published concordat", "common … guidelines" and "consultation". All those concepts may be developed to produce some sort of straitjacket around the actions of the Welsh Assembly in the use of selective financial assistance. Such a straitjacket could do
1174
considerable damage to the future of the Welsh economy and inward investment in Wales. There should be no concordats and guidelines because those must sometimes be broken, or at least fudged, squeezed and amended as opportunities for major investment come along.
I hope that I have made two constructive criticisms within the context of the debate, but I wish to ask one serious question. I presume that the White Paper, in its summary form, is about to be sent out to every household in the land. Is it the last word? Are the Secretary of State and his Ministers willing to accept that serious points have been made—not just marginal points or cosmetic consultation, but effective consideration by hon. Members and commentators outside the House? Can they shift their ground to accommodate both the quango issue, which a number of us have raised, or the new point that I made about the Secretary of State's role in inward investment? I hope so, or we shall be in a dilemma. If we achieve a yes vote, it will not endorse the whole of the White Paper but we shall have every right to return to our debate. I would rather that we changed our minds en route to make the case for devolution stronger in the eyes of the Welsh people.
1.1 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I shall try to be brief. I wish to cover three important points.
I was particularly interested, in reading the White Paper, to see that one of the great selling points will be the Assembly's ability to deal with secondary legislation. I have the privilege—albeit sometimes a slightly purgatorial privilege—of going upstairs every Tuesday afternoon to the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to scrutinise the gobbledegook that comes out of central Government. Statutory instruments and secondary legislation are the Achilles' heel of our democracy, allowing rafts of legislative provision, including criminal offences, to be introduced without anybody knowing what goes on and often with a hideous lack of clarity, some of which derives directly from the Euro-directives.
The Government now say that they will transfer scrutiny of that secondary legislation to the Welsh Assembly, which will have the ability to regulate it. Superficially, that may seem to have a few attractions, but when one sits back and thinks about it, one realises that the Assembly will have no role whatsoever. The vast majority of statutory instruments which it will have the pleasure of rubber-stamping will have to go through willy-nilly, because they come directly from central Government diktat and the majority are imposed through Europe.
What has not been explained—I find this fascinating—is how the content of such instruments will be co-ordinated centrally. We spend a great deal of time in our Committee meetings having explained to us by Speaker's Counsel, who is extremely experienced on the matter, the extraordinary failings and lack of co-ordination between Government Departments in achieving comparable legal provisions, which we must constantly refer back and regulate.
How will that be done if it is not done centrally in this House? It defies credibility that those with ultimate responsibility for good government should simply hive off

1175
to an Assembly that has neither the ability nor the input from specialist staff for the scrutiny of secondary legislation, especially given that the occasions on which it will be able to intervene directly and change the legislation will be extremely limited.
On that score, the Secretary of State and the Government are selling the House and the country a pup. There will be no ability to scrutinise or influence secondary legislation. The reform that is, heaven only knows, badly needed, is in this House. Hon. Members of all parties need to sit down and look at this stuff and prevent it from coming out in such a hideous form. It needs to be referred back to this Chamber if there is to be any opportunity to influence it.
That is not a party political point. Half the statutory instruments that we have been examining over the past few weeks came from the last Government. We are beginning to examine those from this Government, but frankly it does not make a bean of difference—they are equally badly drafted.
I was fascinated to read in the White Paper that, in the resolution of disputes between the Assembly and this House and central Government.
"The Attorney General and Solicitor General will continue to serve Wales and England. Any disputes about the Assembly's use of its powers will be referred to the Law Officers. This should allow disputes to be settled speedily, without recourse to the Courts."
The Law Officers are servants of the Government. If I were in dispute with the Government, I would not go to their lawyers to get my advice. I cannot understand the assumption that disputes will be settled easily through recourse to the Law Officers. Indeed, they have no provision or power to do any such thing, so I assume that some statutory power will be introduced to enable them to do so. To believe that one can go off to the other side's lawyer to get advice is to live in cloud cuckoo land. It is another part of the White Paper that is wholly redundant.
What does shine through in the White Paper is the emphasis on the holistic approach. We heard that two or three times in the Secretary of State's speech. I hope that I came into politics intending to conduct myself with integrity and courtesy—that is important—but politics and its processes are not about an holistic approach. That is the decorative pap and mush that the Government have put out to justify serious constitutional changes that, ultimately, will affect accountability in government.
The basic principle behind the justification for the legislation is that it will make government more accountable; yet we are the sovereign legislative body, and accountability rests with us. The buck stops with us. We are the only people who, ultimately, can call the Secretary of State and the Government to account. The White Paper states, in black and white, that, when the legislation is enacted, the Secretary of State will not be accountable for the activities of the Assembly. A better recipe for bad government could not be found.
I do not want to follow the English nationalist road. I am British. My ancestors come from every corner of the United Kingdom and I see myself as British through and through. The complaint that has been made throughout the whole of the devolution process, and that we have heard again today, is that people want to parochialise their politics. They are no longer prepared to accept the concept that they have to lump majority views within the United Kingdom if they disagree with them. They claim the right
1176
to parochialise their politics and, provided that within their own parish they have a majority view, to buck the view of everyone else.
There is absolutely no doubt that sovereignty ultimately lies with the people of this country, through the sovereign and her coronation oath.
Mr. Flynn: The Queen?
Mr. Grieve: Yes, it lies with the Queen through her coronation oath to her subjects. That is what the oath is all about. It is worth re-reading.
The people have the right to change the circumstances by which they are governed. However, to do that in a way that does not include consulting the people of England is about as crass a piece of policy as we could imagine, especially when all these measures—in particular Scottish devolution, but also Welsh devolution—directly affect the way people are governed.
1.9 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on his maiden speech. I am sure that he will represent his constituency with great force.
Bearing in mind what has gone on over the past couple of months, there seems to be a Welsh national newspaper that is a broadsheet for the Welsh Office. Those of us who happen to have a different view about the Welsh Assembly from other colleagues in the Labour party might well be in favour of devolution. I am strongly in favour of it, but I am not in favour of the Labour party's proposals as encapsulated in the White Paper. A fundamental reason for not believing in them is that I do not want subsidiarity. At the same time, I do not want devolution to stop at an all-Wales level.
I happen to be a strong proponent and supporter of local government. It is an institution that we take for granted all the time. Selfless people spend their lives—many of them prejudicing their careers—to serve others at a local level. They undertake fairly awesome responsibilities. When I was involved in local government I participated more in the democratic process than I feel that I have ever done in England, where the Executive runs the state and where Parliament has little say.
Local government is the largest employer in Wales, and it spends more money than any other organisation in Wales. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if they wanted to abolish quangos, the Government did not first restore to local government the powers of those quangos. It was the Tories who took the powers of local government and handed them to the quangos that they set up.
That is what happened over the past 18 years. The Tories could not govern Wales. Indeed, they could not govern England. They never won local elections. We know that they were hammered at that level. So what did they do? In London, in other parts of England and in Wales, they took powers from local authorities and gave them to unelected quangos, where they could put their placemen. That has been the pattern of politics in Wales.
We should not fall for the false nationalistic answer to the problems of democracy and accountability. Surely we should first undo what the Tories have done. It was the

1177
Tory party that created bad government in Wales. That is why I, and some of my hon. Friends who hold a different view from others in the Labour party, resent the imputation that there is a move to get into bed with the Tories.
I happen to come from what many people in the valleys of south Wales refer to as the heartland of British socialism. The very thought of collaborating with the Tories would get me kicked out of the House by my constituents and by my family, right through to those who would rise from their graves at the very thought of it.
I and my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) are prepared to fight against the Tories all the time. We also fight against the nationalists because we think that they present a false road for the Welsh people to travel down.
Our patriotism and our love of Wales is not based on resentment of the English. We are not fighting for a Wales in Europe. We do not trust the French, the Germans and those from Luxembourg any more or any less than we trust the English. If we have to be part of a pattern of government, I would rather be within the pattern of government of a British state, of Great Britain, rather than following Plaid Cymru's policy of a Wales in Europe. I will not go down that road, because it does not serve my constituents. Let it be understood that we are all here to serve our constituents.
I see my colleagues in the Chamber, and I see no one who is an absolutely dogmatic politician. We must all realise that politics is often the art of the possible. Our surgeries are not full of people who fly to the stars on great political philosophies. They are full of people who are concerned about their rents and their welfare payments, because the ravages of the Tory Government decimated our communities and collapsed our industries. The Tories did that purely out of selfish spite against coal miners. We fight for those people every day.
I am not hung up on any particular structure of governance in Wales, but I want good government for my constituents, and quite frankly I am not convinced by this White Paper. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already made some of the points that I was going to make, but I want to raise one issue in particular. It has been suggested that, if we had had a Welsh Assembly, we would not have had the ravages of Thatcherism, and that somehow Toryism and Thatcherism would have stopped at the Severn bridge or at the border by the A5, near the constituency of that English nationalist, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
There is a railway bridge in Nelson that the Secretary of State and I know very well, from when we were both campaigning for a no vote in 1979. I have seen written on that bridge, "We voted Labour and we got Thatcher." That is true—we had Thatcher and she hammered our constituencies—but an Assembly will not save the people of my constituency from poverty, it will not cure the sick, and it will not put the unemployed back to work.
A previous Labour Government felt that the best way to regenerate the Welsh economy was to establish a Welsh Development Agency, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney gave. It
1178
was decided that we needed something outside the normal organs of government that could energetically pursue investment in Wales. By and large, the WDA has worked.
The issue of accountability has been raised. When the Welsh Development Agency did not work and performed badly, it was made accountable. Tribute was rightly paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for his work on the Public Accounts Select Committee. I can go back a little further. When I was a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee, we considered the Parrot Corporation and its relationship with the WDA. I feel that such accountability will be missing under this proposal.
I have been elected to make such bodies accountable, and if they are not, it is my failure and the failure of every hon. Member. We have the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Welsh Grand Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Chamber, and, if democracy has gone from Wales, it is our fault. We may not have been diligent enough. We fought the Tories, but they had a majority and were able to railroad proposals through. That is greatly to their shame.
It is the fault of Conservative Members that we are in this mess. If there is a break-up of the United Kingdom, as is quite possible as a result of this slope that we are sliding down, people should not blame my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Ancram: They will.
Mr. Rogers: They will not. My right hon. and hon. Friends are responding to the democratic deficit that the Tories created. It is the Tories' fault that we are in this pickle, not ours. At least we are trying to do something about it.
I finish on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thanked me on a couple of occasions for contributing a paper. I have it here. It is called "A Welsh Assembly: Quangos and Local Government". I pay tribute to one person who helped enormously in compiling it. It was done during the election period. It is a fairly reasonable contribution to the debate.
I am sorry that some of the questions that I posed in the paper have not been answered. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to answer some of those questions and to take up the issues that we have brought to him this morning, we can look at the matter again. However, if we are simply to stay as we are, and if all that we are doing this morning and shall do in the next few weeks is going through the motions, I am afraid that I cannot alter my position on the Assembly.
There is a democratic deficit in Wales. I know that, if it continues with the Assembly, my Front-Bench colleagues will have to redress the problem yet again.
1.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: On one point the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) can rest assured. Although we may occasionally have fleeting personal regard for him, we have neither intention nor desire to form any alliance with him.
My speech will be brief, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall select just two of the themes that suggest

1179
themselves from the White Paper. The first relates to Europe. The second relates to one aspect of the workings of the proposed Assembly.
The White Paper points not only to the Assembly's role in promoting, protecting and furthering the interests of Wales and the Welsh people in the United Kingdom but to its potential in furthering the interests of Wales in the European Union. Notwithstanding what the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, the latter point is open to question. I understand that it is being questioned.
The relevant paragraphs in the White Paper are 46 to 56 in chapter 3. Those paragraphs are clearly intended to give the impression that the creation of an Assembly will give Wales a stronger voice in Europe, but I submit that, on closer analysis, most of the functions and activities which are listed there would not remotely do that. With two key exceptions, which I shall come to shortly, the functions outlined for the Assembly in respect of Europe fall into two categories.
One category is those functions and activities that already exist and are fulfilled mainly by the Secretary of State, in part by the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels and in part by the Wales European Centre—as I understand the activities of that body. We are talking about a transfer of existing powers, not the assumption of greater, new or more intensive powers.
The second category of functions in respect of Europe relates to scrutiny and enforcement of European legislation, and their assumption by the Welsh Assembly will not give a stronger voice to Wales in the European Union. None of those functions remotely amounts to an exciting new dimension of Welsh involvement in the European Union.
There are two key paragraphs on the European dimension—paragraphs 53 and 56. In those paragraphs, the White Paper envisages that the Assembly will administer structural funds and have representation on the Committee of the Regions. In those two paragraphs, the Government's thinking reflects the European Union's vision of a Europe of regions rather than the counter-view of a Europe of sovereign national states.
There is a problem here. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Swansea, East in particular said, I find it hard to accept the argument that European regionalism will enhance the nationhood of Wales. It will diminish it: it will relegate Wales to the status of a region. Regionalism is ultimately incompatible with nationhood, and it is intended to be. The stronger argument is that the nationhood of Wales is best protected and promoted within the nation state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in a Europe of nation states. It is neither protected nor promoted by diluting or risking the integrity and sovereignty of the United Kingdom through devolution and choosing to follow the route of European regionalism.
I can pursue my second theme even more briefly. It arises from a chapter in the White Paper on the Assembly and the Welsh economy, and I do not think that the issues that I am about to raise have yet featured in the debate.
1180
According to the summary on page 11, the Assembly will
"provide leadership in setting a new economic agenda for Wales."
It also states that it will
"develop its policies in partnership with local authorities, industry, further and higher education, Training and Enterprise Councils and the voluntary sector".
The White Paper anticipates the concern that those themes may provoke, and tries to give a reassurance on page 11. It is that the Assembly will
"protect Wales's wealth-creating capacity by assessing and publishing the potential cost to business of any new policy proposals."
I do not find that reassuring. Fear persists, and with good reason, because assessing and publishing the potential cost does not prohibit costly measures from being taken and implemented by the Assembly. There is scope for unwarranted interventionism by the Assembly. Far from its activities being the best way to raise living standards to those enjoyed in the more prosperous parts of the UK and Europe, the White Paper proposals could, if implemented, create a mechanism for unwarranted intervention in the wealth-creating process in Wales.
Many genuine concerns arise from the White Paper. I have picked two, the first of which is the proposition that the interests of the Welsh nation lie in taking the path of European regionalism. That is open to serious question. The potential for the Assembly to intervene adversely in the workings of the Welsh economy is self-evident. Those and other matters are genuine causes for concern.
1.27 pm
Dr. John Marek: It was an honour to listen to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane).
It is a little unfortunate that those hon. Members who have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been somewhat critical of the White Paper. That is no fault of yours, but many hon. Members hoping to catch your eye are 100 per cent. behind the White Paper, and will commend it to the Welsh people. I hope that some of them will be able to contribute to the debate.
Negative arguments against change are always appealing. It is easy to say that a proposal will cost a great deal, will produce more bureaucrats and will lead to domination of one part of the Principality by another. Such appealing arguments are easy to understand, but that does not mean that they are right. The White Paper has successfully addressed those arguments, and people who read it will be convinced that change is necessary, and that the way to bring it about is to vote yes on 18 September.
Those of us who wish to do that need to come together. People who want to keep the first-past-the-post voting system use the same old argument: that we know what it is and it is simple, which is easy to say. If people want to change to any form of proportional representation—and there are many—they can argue for this and for that, and it is easy for PR's opponents to decry their arguments. It has happened this morning.
I worry a little about the additional member system. Appointments should be made not by any party secretary sitting in his or her office, but by the membership of a party. If that were the case, there would be no problem, but I am not going to create any problems or to do anything more than simply mention that caveat.

1181
I accept the White Paper's decision to have the 40:20 system, where 40 members are directly elected and 20 are elected by the additional member system. That will be better than all members being directly elected. I implore all people who want change and who want Wales to enter the 21st century alongside other nations, regions and nation regions in Europe to accept the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
There are things that we will need to see in the Bill. At the moment, we have only a White Paper. Details will need to be fleshed out, and I have no doubt that the devil will be in the detail—it is always like that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, I am sure, be able to give an indication of his thinking over the next four or five weeks.
Clearly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has made an important point about secondary legislation. It would be possible for a succeeding Conservative Government to put secondary legislation into primary legislation. As it is, any Administration can introduce what is called an enabling Bill, where the primary legislation says little, and it is all done by secondary legislation.
We need to flesh that out and to be absolutely clear—or reasonably clear—what we would regard as permissible for the Welsh Assembly, what would be the norm for this Parliament, and how to resolve any conflicts or differences of opinion that may rise. That does not stop me one inch from saying that this is a good White Paper and that those are details that will need to be thought through before the Bill is published.
My right hon. Friend talked about the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. I read of a little problem about that. Of course, the different colleges of the university of Wales—I speak as someone who was a lecturer in one of those colleges for 18 years—are little quangos themselves. The college principals always argue about academic freedom, but if anyone has got rid of academic freedom, it is those principals.
During my tenure, I did not have necessarily to get research funding or grants, to do this or to do that or to have to teach certain amounts, but that is not so now. By and large, lecturers now have one-year or three-year contracts, and if they do not produce an equivalent amount of grant or so many papers a year, they are out; so we need not take any lessons from the people in the hierarchy of the university. They always argue for keeping their responsibilities and power.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter in the working party. I would hate a binary divide to be to established in the constitution, where we have higher education on one side and further education on the other. If there is any way of bringing them together and giving that responsibility to the Welsh Assembly, I urge him to consider it seriously. It is an acceptable point; I will say no more than that.
There are worries in north Wales. Last time, north Waleans were worried about the domination by south Wales. The White Paper has overcome that difficulty. It is not two thirds to one third in favour of the south. Of course, a preponderance of people live in the area of the old Glamorgan county council.
1182
If the voting system had been by first past the post—let me be absolutely clear about this—the Labour group from within the boundaries of the council could indeed have dominated the Assembly. I do not say that it would have done that, but it could have. Under the 40:20 system, the Assembly will not be a south Wales, a south Wales Labour or a Labour Assembly: it will be a Welsh Assembly. The change in the voting system means that no single group can or will dominate the Assembly.
I was also happy to hear the Secretary of State say that he does not want the Assembly to be a rest home for elderly, retired councillors or Members of Parliament.
Mr. Rowlands: What is the retirement age?
Dr. Marek: There is a retirement age in this place.
We want capable people to serve on the Assembly. If the conditions are right and there is a job worth doing—the White Paper shows that there will be—I am confident that we will attract people of quality and ability to the Welsh Assembly. They will run the internal affairs of Wales better than anyone in this place.
Why do we need an Assembly? It appears that there will be a Scottish Parliament, that London will have an elected mayor, and that there may be elected regional bodies throughout the United Kingdom. I agree with such moves. If the regions want their own elected bodies, I shall support those proposals.
A north-west development agency will be located in my area. With such an agency located six miles beyond my constituency boundary, it would be foolish for my constituents and the people of Wales to vote no in the referendum: they must have an equal ability to attract investment, jobs and prosperity to their side of the border. It is a question of equality. I believe that the Welsh people will recognise that, and will vote yes in the referendum.
The Assembly will mean more democracy for Wales. For the past 18 years—indeed, for most of this century—the Conservative party has ruled Wales. Although the Welsh people have never elected a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament—they elected no Conservative Members in the recent election, which is a pity, but is one result of the current electoral system—they have had their decisions and way of life determined by the Conservative party. That cannot be right, and the Welsh Assembly will change that state of affairs once and for all.
I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), whom I congratulate on winning his seat. He was my opponent in the last election. He said that the English pay the bills.
It is true that, under the Barnett formula, spending per capita in Scotland and Wales is a little more than in England. However, Wales suffers much higher unemployment, lower average wages and a lack of well-paid jobs. Well-paid jobs are found not in Wales, in Scotland or even in the regions of England—in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds—but in the south-east: the Thames valley. Most Rolls-Royces are garaged within 25 or 30 miles of Whitehall. More importantly, well-paid research and development jobs, decision-making jobs and defence jobs are located in that area. The Welsh Assembly

1183
will break up the central London and south-east class-dominated system of government and administration.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Marek: I shall give way, as long as the hon. Gentleman takes no more than 15 seconds, because I must finish.
Mr. Grieve: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the south-east of England has been the most prosperous part of these islands since the Roman period, long before Whitehall came into being?
Dr. Marek: It has been the most prosperous area for the reasons that I have mentioned. Where has all the wealth been produced? It has been produced in the coal mines of south Wales and the industries of the midlands and the north, but those regions of the United Kingdom have not benefited. A Welsh Assembly will start to redress the balance.
The location of the decision-making structures has always ensured that the greater part of the benefits—an unfair distribution of the cake—goes to that area. I am confident that, when we have a Welsh Assembly, centred in Cardiff but representing the whole of Wales, and a Scottish Parliament, centred in Edinburgh but representing all of Scotland, the living standards of the Welsh and Scottish people will be improved.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I do not decry the English. They are my friends, just as the French and the Germans are. If any region of the United Kingdom wants devolved, local, hands-on regional government, I shall support it.
1.40 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It appears from the White Paper that the Secretary of State is to become a messenger. It says on page 9:
"The Government expects that the Secretary of State will meet the Assembly's Executive Committee regularly to exchange views and information about Government policy."
My experience over the past couple of weeks is that it is better to read the newspapers before a Government announcement than to wait for anyone on the Treasury Bench to tell us about it. I hope that the experience of the Welsh Assembly will be different.
The primary purpose of a Member of Parliament, as I understand it, is to provide a restraint on the Executive and to hold it to account. According to the White Paper, the Assembly will be part of the Executive by assuming the executive powers of the Secretary of State. However, Members of Parliament—this particularly affects Welsh Members—will be unable to hold that part of the Executive to account. What diminished role will they have? Will they accept a diminished status and diminished remuneration?
In the White Paper, the Government attempt to deal with areas in which disputes may arise between the Assembly and the Government. I continue from where my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) left off about the determination of such disputes. On page 21, the White Paper says:
"If the Law Officers considered that the Assembly had used, or was proposing to use, its secondary legislation powers unlawfully, the matter could be put to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a speedy decision."
1184
Oh, so that is it. There will be a speedy resolution, and the Assembly men will go back to Wales, confident that they have overstepped the mark; and that will be an end of the matter. Do we really expect them to put their feet up and say, "Oh well, we tried it on, but it did not come off'?
We have already heard from Opposition Members—and on Tuesday we heard from Labour Members—who claimed that the proposals were not nearly enough, and would be merely a starting point on the evolutionary road to Welsh government. We heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about not a magical mystery tour, but a constitutional mystery tour. A tour implies that somebody knows where he is going, and that there will at least be a guide, or perhaps an interpretative centre as they are now called, masquerading as a motorway service station. There is at least some assumption that someone has a notion of the destination. That is not the case with the White Paper.
The people of Wales—wrong, the residents of Wales—
Mr. Öpik: I have one question for the hon. Gentleman. If his own party is so clear about its direction, how does it have such mutually contradictory positions on devolution for Wales and devolution for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has already answered that question. A very different situation obtains in Northern Ireland. The social circumstances for which that form of government is designed do not obtain—and, I hope, never will—in Wales. It is not a question of making a distinction in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies.
In the referendum, the residents of Wales will make a decision. Residency is the narrow definition used in the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, although the people of Wales stretch far beyond such a description. Nevertheless, the residents of Wales must decide in the referendum whether we in these kingdoms are a nation, or merely a collection of tribes. If they make the wrong decision in the referendum, you may discover, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have presided over the last Parliament of these kingdoms.
1.46 pm
Ann Clwyd: I am glad to be able to correct the considerable imbalance in this morning's debate. First, there has been a gender imbalance and secondly, an imbalance in the number of people who have spoken in favour of the Welsh Assembly. From listening to the debate, one would not think that the majority of Welsh Members are in favour of a Welsh Assembly. One would not think that, now that we have more women from Wales in the House, they would have no voice at all.
One of the many attractions of the Assembly for people in Wales is that it will, we hope, correct the gender imbalance that exists here and which makes this a totally unrepresentative House of Commons. Women should form 50 per cent. of the membership here. I hope that, when we have the Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Labour members will do everything possible to ensure a better representation in it.
Many points have been made today to which I would like to respond, but there is not enough time and I want to give some of my hon. Friends an opportunity to speak

1185
in the debate. I am sorry that 20 years ago, we did not get an Assembly. If we had, much of the havoc wreaked on Wales in the past 18 years would not have taken place.
I represent Cynon Valley which suffers from high unemployment, which has a high percentage of people who are disabled as a result of working in the former industries there and which has a high percentage of young people who are unable to find jobs. The injustice of that is obvious to all Labour Members. What has made me angry during the 13 years I have been here is the fact that there were rarely occasions on which I was able to question the Executive about the policies they were imposing on Wales.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) seems to believe that the Welsh Grand Committee is a substitute for an Assembly. He cannot ever have been to a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Those of us who have had to endure the Welsh Grand Committee for many years have constantly been in the majority, yet we have seen policies imposed on the people we represent which have been contrary to the opinions expressed in that Committee.
Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ann Clwyd: No, I am not giving way. There is not enough time.
I believe that the people of Wales will vote yes for an Assembly. I would have liked a parliament, as I have said many times. I believe that public opinion in Wales will eventually support a parliament and will not be content with only an Assembly. I am sorry that we are not getting the same as Scotland. The Tory rout in Scotland and Wales shows that, if the status quo were ever an option, it certainly is not now.
The current system of government in Wales is glaringly undemocratic, and everybody knows it. At Welsh questions every three weeks in the House of Commons, the majority of Welsh Labour Members who represent the majority of people in Wales are not even able to put their questions. Somebody calculated that a Welsh Labour Member was lucky if he or she were able to ask two oral questions in an entire year.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ann Clwyd: No, I am not giving way.
How can anybody possibly argue that, given such a statistic, the system is democratic? It is not, was not and cannot be.
I should like to cite one example of the way in which the health service has been run in Wales over the past few years. Between 1970 and 1974, I served on the Welsh hospital board. That board was not a perfect arrangement, but at least it could question the Welsh Office's policies. We were lay people. People in Wales knew our names, addresses and telephone numbers, and could contact us if they wished. We travelled all over Wales; we tried to put forward the best policies for health in Wales.
In 1974, the hospital board was taken away and the health service in Wales became less democratic than that in England, which continued to have regional boards.
1186
Over the years since 1974, while the Welsh Office has been making very important decisions about the health service in Wales, we as Welsh Members, have not been able properly to call to account the people who made those decisions. As a consequence, much of Wales has a third-world health service. The people of Wales will certainly not be content with such a health service when they have a Welsh Assembly, and they will be able to put detailed questions to the people who represent them in that Assembly.
In the preface to the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says that the new Labour Government
"is pledged to clean up … British politics."
He lists the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament as bodies which will give
"the people of Wales and Scotland more control over their own affairs within the United Kingdom".
He mentions new citizens' rights under the European convention on human rights and states the Government's commitment to freedom of information. I hope that we do not have to wait much longer for a freedom of information Bill to become law.
The new Assembly wants to consider what sort of standing orders and working procedures it has in order to enable Members of the Assembly to assess official information and hold the Executive to account. I hope that we will no longer hear answers containing the words "disproportionate cost", "the information is not available centrally" and all such things about which the Scott report urged Members of Parliament to do something. Members of the new Assembly should make it clear very quickly that they are not prepared to take such answers.
Devolution is not about separatism; it is about doing a better job of work. The measure of the Assembly's success will be what it does to foster proper jobs, paying proper wages, in the many parts of Wales where there has been a collapse of traditional heavy industry and employment opportunity. Historically, Wales was a major part of Britain's industrial base. After 18 years of Tory blight, areas such as the south Wales valleys have very low economic activity and the lowest income per head in Great Britain. What kind of fairness within the United Kingdom is that?
Much criticism has been made of the democratic deficit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said what he intends to do about that, and I welcome it.
Broadcasting policy should also come within the remit of the Welsh Assembly, because both north and south Wales have real concerns about broadcasting. In south Wales, Channel 5 appears on the screen like a snowstorm on the Brecon Beacons and there is considerable resentment that the UK Channel 4 is not available. BBC Wales, under the royal charter, is classified as a national region of the BBC, on a par with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the chairman sits on the BBC's main board of governors as the BBC's national governor for Wales. That is a colonial arrangement and must be reconsidered because, regardless of the postholder's fitness or lack of probity, he can be removed only by the Queen.
Reform of the constitution, in the specific proposals in the White Paper, is not a Labour party pipe dream: it is the only way to deal with the social, educational, health, employment, transport and agricultural issues that face

1187
Wales today. The proposals in the White Paper are enormously important to every man, woman and child in Wales and I have no hesitation in supporting them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 2.10 pm. I can call three Back Benchers if they take only five minutes each. I apologise to hon. Members who will not be called, but they will be remembered in later debates.
1.55 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: This debate is important for the people of Wales, for the way in which Wales is governed and for all the people in this United Kingdom. Wales, like much of the United Kingdom, already has devolved government, but it is government by quango and is not accountable. The proposals in the White Paper begin to address that problem and, for that reason, they are both radical and progressive. They are radical because they will lead to a directly elected Assembly that will provide an opportunity to hold to account those who run vital services, such as health and education, for which they are presently not accountable.
Many problems in Wales stem from the fact that we have devolved government that is not accountable. The White Paper is progressive, because it will give the Assembly responsibility for ending the financial waste, corruption and patronage of the quango state. The ending of the quango culture is necessary, and will be a central task for the new Assembly.
In the 18 years of the Tory Government, we became the most centrally governed country in western Europe. I spent 20 years in local government before coming to the House and I can testify to the many powers that were drained away from local communities and brought here to the centre. Decisions that should be taken by local people are no longer taken by them.
Wales has only three Ministers, who together share responsibility for everything, from economic development to agriculture, fisheries, food, industry, training, health and education. That whole panoply of responsibilities rests with them and, with the best will in the world, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his two Ministers—no matter how hard they work—cannot always be on top of their job. That is no reflection on them and, indeed, has been recognised in past years. Tory Ministers shared the powers that the House gave them with the quangos, because that was the only way that they could deliver services in Wales.
The number of quangos in Wales greatly increased, while the number of elected councillors fell. The late and unlamented Tory Government created 64 new quangos and made 40,000 appointments in the last year in England and Wales. Two thirds of those appointments were paid, and many went to Tory placemen, yet the Tories accuse us of trying to create jobs for the boys. All the quangos must be brought under democratic control, because vital services such as health and education should not be controlled by bodies that meet behind closed doors, spend millions of pounds and are not even truly accountable. That is why I welcome the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
1188
When people in Wales have a problem, they can contact their Member of Parliament or their local councillor. Local people cannot so easily get hold of whoever runs the local ambulance trust, the local hospital or the local further education college. My hon. Friends from south-east Wales and I can tell stories of recent problems with the tertiary college in Gwent and how impossible it is to contact the quangos that run education in our country.
In spite of the fact that there is a problem with a college in Gwent, Members of Parliament from Gwent have been asking for a report on that college that has been produced, and the Minister has requested that information be passed on, the quango has so far refused to co-operate. Those people are simply not accountable. The quangos that control such vital services must be brought under democratic control. In his statement earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he sees the White Paper as marking the end of the quango expansion and one of the prime tasks of the new Assembly will be to tackle that.
The proposals before us provide a practical way to improve accountability and to decentralise power within Wales—that is the way we should be going. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that the Assembly will have the entire budget of the Welsh Office—£7 billion. I hear Conservative Members, like the nationalists in a previous incarnation, saying that the Assembly will be a talking shop, but with £7 billion to spend it will be a pretty big talking shop.
The Government are committed to devolution and I look forward to campaigning with my right hon. Friend across Wales to put Labour's case; but it will be Labour's case, not the nationalists' case or the Liberal Democrats' case, because the Labour party is not in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom or creating some sort of federal structure. The Government have set out their devolution stall and, with the White Paper, what you see is what you get—no less and no more.
Devolution is not about nationalism; it is not about separation; it is not about the break-up of the United Kingdom; it is not even about being Welsh. It is about making the system by which we run our country as open and as accountable as we can possibly make it. The only way forward is to extend devolution throughout the whole United Kingdom. The only way to answer the West Lothian question is to have devolution throughout these islands and an elected authority for London and chambers for the English regions are part of Labour's policy. Devolution is about giving people a sense of ownership of the political system, ensuring that they count, their opinions matter and their vote counts, wherever they live.
The relationship between the Westminster Parliament, the Assembly and local government is very important. Only last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
"Devolution does not end in Cardiff',
and I agree with him. I recognise that there are some, even in my own party, who think that it is clever and smart to denigrate local councillors or local councils as if they were political dinosaurs or throwbacks to the past—not the sort of people we want to sit in the Assembly. I say that we want people from all areas of Welsh public life to sit in the Assembly.
I read articles in newspapers and magazines and see interviews on television in which people talk of some mythical boyo culture—some Welsh Taffia that runs local

1189
government. They tell us that those are not the sort of people we want involved in the new Assembly. They want the experts and the specialists, but an old friend of mine—Councillor Ray Owen—used to tell me, "Always be careful of experts. Remember, experts built the Titanic; ordinary folk like you and me built the Ark."
Local councils have a part to play in devolving government throughout Wales and I welcome the thrust of the White Paper in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking to a local government audience in Manchester this week, told them that they were the democratic leadership of our cities and towns. He went on to say:
"Over the last two difficult decades, it is in local government that the principles and beliefs of social justice have been applied in practice. And, as a result, you have led the way for the new Government".
I certainly endorse that.
I caution those whose enthusiasm for devolution leads them to verbally abuse councillors and portray some of them as old Labour and therefore unworthy of being associated with our campaign. They might also knock former members of this House or the other place, or make digs at geriatric tax exiles who do not share our views on devolution. We will lose the argument and we will lose the referendum if we prefer the easy target of personal attack to the more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding, objective of putting the case for devolution and campaigning on that throughout Wales. We will win the debate and the referendum only by making devolution relevant to the everyday lives of the people of Wales. If some find that too intellectually challenging, they had better be quiet, because they will not be helping our cause.
I am conscious that others want to speak, so I shall make one final point. The White Paper confirms the Government's commitment to local government and to decentralising power. I argue that that is the way we should be going. A Welsh Assembly which has the power to act on a wide range of matters and which is seen to be accountable is not another tier of government—it is a better system of government.
2.4 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: My first comment is one of slight surprise. It has become clear throughout the debate that the constructive opposition to devolution has come not from the official Opposition, but from within the Government. That has contributed positively today, because the useful and serious points about what might concern the Welsh public have been heard in the House. Unfortunately, the official Opposition choose to argue in a way which manifestly contradicts other aspects of their policy positions.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to his concern at a shift from our current constitutional settlement to a different one. That is exactly what will happen, but I do not regard that as a negative. As Liberal Democrats, we have campaigned for exactly this shift for more than a century. We welcome the courage of the Government in coming forward with this proposal. It will not destroy the United Kingdom. One has only to look at the format in the United States of America—the wealthiest nation on earth—which has a state and federal structure to understand that the shift is not necessarily negative.
1190
Secondly, it has been said that devolution will weaken the Union. That is manifestly not the case. Anyone who has worked in a large team in business knows that one increases the effectiveness of that business by delegating to individual team members. Delegation in business is akin to devolution in politics. We must look again at the professional experience and trust ourselves to make sensible decisions.
I wish to refer to some of our concerns. We believe that the proposed electoral system—although an improvement on the first-past-the-post system—remains inadequate. It is not fully proportional, and I am sure that we will return to this issue in the House and outside. I welcome the reassurances that we have had from the Secretary of State about the Development Board for Rural Wales and the transfer of its operations to a new regional development agency, but we want to be absolutely sure that that happens.
We must discuss what secondary legislative power means. The Liberal Democrats support primary legislative powers for the Welsh Assembly, similar to the powers that the Scottish Parliament is likely to obtain. Once again, we expect to make a contribution on that score. As far as the Wokingham question is concerned—the possibility that a future Secretary of State could once again lord it over Wales, even with a Welsh Assembly—we believe that there is some constitutional work to do on that score to obtain a reasonable settlement. That should not deter us from moving forward with devolution.
As Liberal Democrats, we will continue to make a contribution in good faith, believing that our ideas will be considered—and included, to a reasonable extent—by the Government as we move towards the final proposals in the House. Good words about inclusiveness are not the same as good deeds, and we will watch to make sure that the Assembly passes that crucial test of inclusiveness.
Finally, there are the "What ifs?", as in, "What if it doesn't work?" I am glad that the Wright brothers did not think that. I am glad that Nelson Mandela did not say that. We must have the courage of our convictions and simply say, "We will make it work and we will overcome the barriers which prevented us from doing it before." We must not live in a penumbra of self-doubt, wondering whether we have the ability to move forward. This Parliament represents 60 million people and a successful United Kingdom, and it will be more successful if we devolve our powers to those more able to make decisions.
My challenge is not just to my Liberal Democrat colleagues but to the official Opposition to stop dragging their heels and living in the past. They must stop trying to turn this issue into a political football and start giving the Welsh people the respect that they deserve. By all means argue the case, but in a constructive context, so that, ultimately, we can look back at this Parliament and say that we all made a personal contribution to a truly great reforming Parliament.
2.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on his maiden speech. At least his was made in daylight hours—unlike mine, in 1992, which was made at 2 am. I also congratulate our 1997 intake—my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for New Forest, West

1191
(Mr. Swayne)—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
We heard the green-tinted spectacles view from the hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We also heard the voice of realism—never mind the voice of Wales—from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and the right hon. Members for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
Ms Julie Morgan rose—
Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she hopes that there will be a gender balance in the new Assembly. That is only a hope and an aspiration; unless the Labour party loads its list system, it may not happen—and loading the list system for the Assembly will simply give power to the party rather than to the people. She also mentioned the problem over questions to the Executive.
Ms Morgan rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) must know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.
Mr. Evans: I have only 10 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If Labour Welsh politicians would table more questions on the Order Paper, they would have more questions called.
In 1979, the Welsh people voted four to one against devolution. There has been no change. If the answer to the question is that we need 60 more politicians and extra civil servants, I worry about the question being asked. The people of Wales want better government, not more government; they certainly do not want more expensive government. We have been able to squeeze out of the Government the fact that, for the first four years, the Welsh Assembly will cost £100 million. Let every Labour politician go back to his or her constituency and say that they want that money spent on a Welsh Assembly rather than more teachers in schools, more nurses in hospitals and more policemen on streets and then listen to what the people of Wales have to say. That is the voice of Wales.
We shall see a turbo-charged county council with Assembly members on turbo-charged salaries. The Secretary of State admits that the Assembly can always be overruled by the Westminster Parliament. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West managed to squeeze that concession out of him. If so, why bother going ahead with an Assembly? It is as if the people of Scotland will have a Parliament with tax-raising powers, yet Wales will be offered something less.
Being a Welshman, I know that Wales can sing. Despite the delights of Wales with Bryn Terfel and the Morriston Orpheus choir, Wales will be turned into the land of talk and each word will be extremely expensive,
1192
with a £100 million start-up. Welsh taxpayers, along with my constituents in Ribble Valley, will help to pick up that tab. That is where the common sense of the Welsh people will come in.
Furthermore, the Assembly is regarded by nationalists and many in Wales as a stepping stone to an independent Wales. We have heard that before from members of Plaid Cymru and other nationalists in Wales. In 1977, Lord Crickhowell said that the Assembly
"threatens the unity of Britain by seeking to establish a system that would focus discontent and concentrate it in a form likely to create hostility to this Parliament and the constitutional arrangements themselves".
He was right in 1977 and he is right 20 years later. It is inevitable that, once the Assembly is set up, it will go on a power grab. Unlike the Secretary of State, it will want something real to do. It will grab many powers not only from Westminster, but from local authorities, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West said on Tuesday that this was a constitutional magical mystery tour. I am not sure that he was right. We can picture the Secretary of State with his hands on the wheel of his tired old jalopy, with 11 points on his driving licence for driving without due care and attention and his eyes more on his unwilling, hostile and complaining passengers than on the road ahead. The louder the shouts from his passengers to stop the bus, the harder he pushes his foot down on the accelerator, believing that speeding towards the cliff will allow him to jump the gap in his flawed logic—that it is possible to create the Assembly without giving it any real powers, and more and more powers in the future. It is not a magical mystery tour, because we know exactly where it will end.
What is the point of setting up the Assembly? If it is designed to satisfy the demands of Welsh nationalists, it fails because of its limited powers. If it is designed to safeguard Welsh culture, it is unnecessary because the previous Conservative Government did more to promote the Welsh language and culture than any of their predecessors. If it is designed to promote business in Wales, people need only look at the Conservative Government's record on investment in Wales, especially during the past 12 months when my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Wales. The proposal is an ill-thought-out hotch-potch that will cause discontent and nationalist fervour to flourish.
We wonder about the role planned for the Secretary of State. We can imagine him sitting at the Cabinet table acting as the errand boy. We can imagine the Prime Minister stuttering, "G-G-Granville, t-take these groceries t-to the Welsh Assembly. D-d-don't forget to p-pick up its order on t-the way back." It is a messenger boy role for the right hon. Gentleman.
Will the Secretary of State go to the Assembly? If he does, will he be its leader—something with which the Western Mail tried to frighten the Welsh people recently. Who will he speak for—the Assembly or the Westminster Parliament?
Mrs. Betty Williams rose—
Mr. Evans: No. I shall not give way.
We need to know the answer, because the proposal for an Assembly will put the Barnett formula at risk, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Llanelli. It will risk

1193
the over-representation of Members of Parliament from Wales at Westminster, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Shropshire, North and for Faversham and Mid-Kent. It will put at risk the rate support grant to local authorities as the Welsh Assembly tries to take some of the money for itself. It will force up council tax for the Welsh people. They will have to meet the £100 million cost and higher taxes.
Mrs. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Evans: Some people—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Evans: Some people will say that the Government's proposals are half-baked. If only they were. They are still in the mixing bowl, congealing. They are being rushed through the House—we have just this one debate today. The Welsh Grand Committee will not examine them. We do not have a Bill to examine, just a White Paper. The people of Wales have eight weeks to study these proposals—over the summer, when many of them will be on holiday. It is a measure of the Government's confidence in their proposals that they are pushing them through with as little open debate as possible. At the same time, they intend to stuff Welsh letter boxes with their White Paper, but no funding will be provided for the other side of the debate.
Mr. Ron Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should make public money available for the yes and the no campaigns?
Mr. Evans: No. I am suggesting that £700,000 could be saved by not stuffing the White Paper through the door of every household in Wales. After all, it was printed in the Western Mail, so every household could have read it this week.
Why is the referendum in Wales being held a week after the referendum in Scotland? Is it a cynical ploy by the Government, who might think that they have a better chance in Scotland of getting their proposals through? Do they think that, after the referendum in Scotland, they will be able to bounce the Welsh people into voting yes on 18 September? I can tell the Secretary of State now that the Welsh people will not be bounced into voting yes. They will use their common sense on 18 September. They will not be treated as the dessert to the Scottish dog's dinner, and they will be voting no.
If we are being presented with Labour's flagship, I can say only that it is badly holed. I am not surprised, given its motley crew. The members of its crew are steering the ship on to the rocks of common sense.
Our constitution cannot be compared with Cardiff Arms park—it cannot be dismantled and then put back together, brick by brick, with the expectation that it will be the same. Once the foundation bricks are removed, the entire structure is in danger. The Government's proposals will
1194
be bad for the United Kingdom and especially bad for Wales. That is why the people's movement is gaining strength. It is also why Viscount Tonypandy, a respected former Speaker, said that the Welsh people must not be misled
"by this foolish proposal of a Welsh Assembly. A Welsh Assembly will fan the flames of nationalism, and that would do no good at all for jobs or the cultural life of Wales."
"Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi".
The land of my fathers is dear to me. It is dear to all those who live in Wales as it is to those who live in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe, along with those who live in other parts of the world. They and I have pride in Wales. They and I see the strength of the United Kingdom. They and I will be campaigning and hoping for a no victory on 18 September.
2.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I admire the cheek, if nothing else, of Conservative spokesmen. The fat-cat party is quibbling about Assembly levels of expenditure that will be determined not by Members of the House of Commons or by Assembly members, but by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body. If the cost of the Assembly amounts to 0.3 per cent. of the total budget, a figure of which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is apparently ignorant, it will be money well spent in beginning to dismantle the Tory quango state. We shall start to make huge savings in the cost of the quangos.
Mr. Ancram: How many teachers' jobs?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman asks how many teachers' jobs will be equivalent to the expenditure to which I have referred. That is enormous cheek when we remember that the Conservative Government over the past year cut 600 teaching jobs. They cut also hundreds of nursing jobs. It is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman lectures us about council tax. The Conservative Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has had his say, and he must allow someone else to speak.
Mr. Hain: The Conservative Government imposed swingeing council tax increases on almost all Welsh unitary authorities over the past year or two, and it is not for them to bleat on about the council tax issue.
The right hon. Member for Devizes talks about millions of pounds and plucks figures out of thin air, as did two Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that the Assembly would cost £100 million. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) halved that and said that it would cost £50 million. At the same time, there are many crocodile tears about nurses and teachers.
The right hon. Member for Devizes and his Conservative colleagues on the Opposition Back Benches claim to speak for the people of England. I remind them that the people of England overwhelmingly supported the Labour party's policy for a devolved United Kingdom. The Conservatives polled only 34 per cent. of the vote in

1195
England. They may be a little Englander party, but they do not speak for England. They certainly do not speak for Wales or Scotland.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—I have a close relationship with him as a colleague in West Glamorgan and as a fellow Labour Member—will not be joining the Tories in the no campaign. I agree with him that any personal abuse that there has been should end.
Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hain: No. I am not giving way to anyone. I do not have the time to do so.
Any personal abuse that there has been in the campaign so far must end. I agree fully with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on that score.
Having been a bit of a rebel myself over the years, I do not ask for blind loyalty. No one is asking for that. However, the Labour Government were elected overwhelmingly in Wales on the policy of a Welsh Assembly. All 34 Labour Members were elected on a manifesto commitment that was crystal clear. In addition, the Labour party has unanimously passed this policy at successive conferences. We are entitled to expect Labour party members up and down the country to take note of that.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made an important point about rural policy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). We believe that the powerhouse agency will provide a more comprehensive and coherent policy for all rural areas of Wales. Far from retreating from a strong rural policy, we shall strengthen and upgrade the rural perspective of our policy across Wales.
I welcome the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), who is a worthy champion of north Wales and of his constituents. I draw the House's attention to what he said, which no doubt others, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), would have said if they had been able to speak in the debate. All the north Wales Members support a Welsh Assembly, because they know that it will give north Wales a new voice not just in Wales, but in Britain, in Europe and internationally.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that, like the Welsh Development Agency and the other economic agencies, the powerhouse will have operational independence. He asked about paragraph 2.24 of the White Paper, which refers to inward investment. It does no more than describe the existing situation as it affects the Invest in Britain Bureau, which prevents bidding wars between the different constituents of the United Kingdom. There is certainly no watering down of protection for Wales.
The White Paper lays out a series of principles on an Assembly for Wales. It will be up to hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, to put detailed points in Committee. If their points have merit, we shall take them on board in the spirit of inclusivity with which we have governed Wales in our first three months. The White Paper stands as the manifesto on which we shall go to the people of Wales on 18 September with confidence.
1196
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a number of points about local government. Every local authority in Wales has enthusiastically supported the Government's programme for a Welsh Assembly. I agree with him that there should be no false nationalism. Indeed, I believe that the policy for a Welsh Assembly will bury for ever the separatist fantasy that Wales can go it alone as an independent republic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) make some fair points about higher and further education, which we shall have to take into account. I agree that it will not be a Labour Assembly or a Cardiff Assembly: it will be a Welsh Assembly that represents all the people of Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made some telling points about the under-representation of women not just in this Parliament but in Welsh cultural life at senior levels. It is incumbent on all political parties, when selecting candidates for the Welsh Assembly, to ensure that we achieve the goal of equal representation for women and men. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Labour will take a lead on that. I also welcome the point made by my hon. Friend that the vast majority of Labour Members, including many who have not had a chance to speak today, support the Government's policy, and will campaign actively for a yes vote.
The Government propose a modern constitution for Britain, which will include regional government in England, starting with a referendum in London and the setting up next year of powerful English regional economic development agencies. What the Conservatives and other opponents of a Welsh Assembly are really saying is that Scotland will have its own Parliament, the English regions will have their own regional bodies and Northern Ireland will have a measure of self-government, but Wales must be isolated as the only part of the United Kingdom that chooses to be ruled from London. Even by the Tories' own standards, that is an utterly incredible and insulting position.
The Tories are again treating Wales with contempt, as if it were a second-class nation deserving second-class treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made the telling point that the Tories have always opposed democratic advance, throughout the history of British parliamentary democracy and its origins. Why do they not come clean and mount their own no campaign? The Labour party has mounted a yes campaign. Why are the Tories so shy? Why are they sheltering furtively behind other no campaigners? Why are they using the no campaign as a Tory front organisation—because that is what it is?
The Tories should stop trying to hoodwink the people of Wales again. They should be in no doubt that the referendum campaign will be an action replay of the general election campaign. Once again, it will be Wales against the Tories. Not only will a big yes vote deliver a voice for Wales but the referendum will be an opportunity to beat the Tories for a second time.
The Tories have attacked Wales for decades, if not for centuries—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I make no criticism of you or the other Deputy

1197
Speaker who chaired this very good debate, could we make the point that, while some say that the Welsh Assembly will be a talking shop, for 10 hon. Members this morning who represent Welsh constituencies, this Parliament was a non-talking shop? We had no opportunity to express our enthusiasm, excitement and exhilaration about the prospect of a Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter is not in my hands but in the hands of other hon. Members. If their speeches had been shorter, I would have called more hon. Members.

SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, in the Table in paragraph (2), in the item relating to the National Heritage Committee, by replacing the words 'National Heritage/Department of National Heritage' with the words 'Culture, Media and Sport/Department for Culture, Media and Sport'; and
(2) all proceedings of the House and of its Select Committees in this Session in respect of the National Heritage Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 31st July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

LIAISON
Ordered,
That Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Margaret Hodge, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Rhodri Morgan. Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. David Tredinnick and Mr. Bowen Wells be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Alan Campbell, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Geraint Davies, Maria Eagle, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Phil Hope, Mr. Christopher Leslie, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Pensions (Mis-selling)
2.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for giving me an opportunity to raise this critical issue before the summer recess.
"One of the biggest financial scandals in British history."
Those are not my words, but the headline from a Sunday newspaper earlier this year, which described its view of the mis-selling of pensions scandal. A bit of journalistic licence, no doubt, but the headline reflects the true scale of the scandal in terms of both the numbers of people directly affected and the level of financial loss that they have incurred. It also reflects the impact that the events have had on the wider pensions industry.
Pensions are about providing security in old age. It can be provided only through long-term savings, which depend critically on trust and consumer confidence. Both have been undermined as part of the fallout surrounding the scandal and the failure of the pensions industry to identify and compensate those affected.
The scandal could not have reached the proportions it has had it not been sustained by a potent mix of ideological prejudice and institutional incompetence. The conditions for it were created by a Government intent on offloading those on state pensions into individualised schemes in the private sector. That was done through a combination of bribes at the taxpayer's expense and an expensive advertising campaign to promote such schemes.
It was fuelled by a pensions industry unable and unwilling to restrain the baser instincts of its sales staff, whose salaries were almost exclusively dependent on making a sale and earning a commission. It was sustained by a regulatory regime that failed adequately to tackle the mounting evidence of mis-selling or set effective deadlines for redress. It was writ large by a combination of pensions industry indifference and the palpable failures of self-regulation.
It all started in 1988, the year in which personal pensions were launched and when the main provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force. However, it was not until December 1993, a full five years later, that the issue of mis-selling first came to light. At that time, the Securities and Investments Board commissioned KPMG, a leading firm of City accountants, to review the files of a sample of clients who had been sold personal pensions. Only 9 per cent. of those files showed evidence of substantial compliance with the rules, and the report classified 37 per cent. of the files as suspect.
Personal pensions were supposed to be sold against rigorous standards that were set out in the Financial Services Act. Not only should clients receive best advice on the choices before them, which would have included remaining with their existing pension providers, but sales staff also had a duty to find out about current pension arrangements and financial circumstances. To underpin those standards, the Government set up a number of watchdogs. The problem was that, under self-regulation, the watchdogs were those who were selling personal pensions.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of mis-selling that emerged in late 1993 and early 1994, it was almost a year before the SIB published a programme for securing

1199
redress for the victims of mis-selling. The extent of the scandal began to emerge at that time. It was on an unprecedented scale, with more than 570,000 priority one cases—those at or near retirement—and a further 1 million to 2 million cases involving younger people. There is some evidence that those may be underestimates, because some sections of the industry have shown a marked reluctance to alert their clients to the fact that they may have been mis-sold pensions and are due for compensation.
Various deadlines in 1995 and 1996 were set for the review of cases of the different priority groups. None has been met. In the two and a half years following the first evidence of mis-selling, the pensions industry was able to deal only with just under 1 per cent. of priority one cases.
That lamentable record was matched, if not exceeded, by that of the Conservative Government. They did nothing, because they were responsible for creating the climate in which mis-selling could take place. Their failure can be summed up by the fact that more than 18,000 people who were mis-sold personal pensions died during their administration without receiving compensation.
I am pleased to see that the Government have been and will be more robust in meeting the new deadlines for case review and for the payment of compensation. The decision to get tough, and to name and shame those who are dragging their feet, has been universally welcomed by Labour Members, by those directly affected, and by the public. They have been welcomed by everyone except some of the companies involved, and by Opposition Members, who are absent for the debate and who remain strangely silent on the issue.
I note the new determination of City regulators to enforce the review deadline with a threat of heavy fines for companies that do not comply. All that is welcome.
Before I am accused of knocking the pensions industry as an easy target, I shall put to the Minister two of its concerns about the continuing delay in the processing of claims. I have been told by those companies that want to clear up the mess that they are being hampered by the pension funds of small and medium-sized companies, which do not have the resources to respond with the basic information that is necessary to agree compensation.
There is also concern over the prospects of reaching an agreement with the regulatory organisations about practical schemes which, I am told, many companies are anxious to develop to resolve outstanding claims. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Even assuming that its concerns are valid, the pensions industry would have to accept that the latest published figures to the end of June, which show that only two of the 24 companies have managed to compensate more than one in 10 of their cases are deplorable.
Even allowing for the argument of the Association of British Insurers that the figures include a considerable number of cases where no mis-selling has been found—and I would certainly wish to argue with it about the numbers—there is still a considerable mountain to climb to complete the review by the end of the year.
Recognising that the Government's freedom of action is somewhat constricted by the threat of litigation, I wonder what further action the Minister could contemplate, to achieve, in her own words:
"the Government's determination that this matter be resolved with dispatch".
1200
What scope does she have for the extension of sanctions against companies that simply refuse to take the steps necessary to deliver the targets for completion of case reviews set by the regulators?
If companies continue to refuse to adopt the type of practices that the Government believe will hasten the conclusion of case reviews, will my hon. Friend consider further sanctions? Recently, the Minister for Welfare Reform suggested extending the powers of the Personal Investment Authority to include fines on directors. What scope exists to disqualify company directors who continue to refuse to comply?
In the context of the recently announced pensions review, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will not consider extending the scope of privately funded pension arrangements before the issue of mis-selling has been resolved, and that those companies that fail to meet the targets set by the regulatory authorities will prejudice their inclusion in any new arrangements following that review.
The mis-selling of pensions exposed all that is wrong with self-regulation. As a result, I welcome the Government's commitment to statutory backing through a new financial services Act and the creation of what has been called Super SIB. However, we must recognise the concern of much of the industry that those changes should not lead to an increase in industry compliance costs, which will inevitably filter through to the consumer.
Regulation must be at a level that has the confidence of the consumer, and re-establishes the trust that has been so badly dented through this whole fiasco; but regulation must also be delivered at a cost that can be justified. Achieving a balance that creates a framework of effective regulation that is appropriate, responsive and flexible will be one of the foremost challenges facing the new arrangements.
One of the lessons of the recent past is the need for greater transparency, in terms of both the financial arrangements underpinning personal pensions and the degree of independence of so-called "independent" financial advisers. The Consumers Association has campaigned for a fee-based system, under which people pay for genuine advice from truly independent financial advisers, rather than having people posing as such, as at present.
Although changes have been made in the financial arrangements for personal pensions, there is some evidence that sales staff are still too dependent on commissions, and that the level of training is not appropriate. As a result, human nature could again undermine confidence in the industry, which is so vital to its future.
The Minister has made it clear more than once that her decision to review progress and to publish information is in the public interest. I agree. One of the problems that has undermined consumer confidence in the industry is the lack of published information. Real benefits to the consumer would accrue from the provision of simple and easily understood information about the financial aspects of personal pensions.
Much of the excuse for the obsessive secrecy of the industry is the highly technical nature, it is claimed, of much of that information, but that could be presented in a more user-friendly way, and it should be possible to

1201
introduce chartermarks to help consumers to find their way with confidence through the maze of pension products available in the marketplace.
It is only by a combination of prompt and determined action to end this sorry saga, and new and more effective regulation, that it will be possible to re-establish that trust with the public, so that private pensions, for defined groups in certain circumstances, can hold out the promise of security in old age.
2.44 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his success in securing this debate, which is of great interest to many of my hon. Friends. I congratulate him also on his truly superb speech, which has put the issue in context. He is right to draw attention to the fact that no Conservative Members are present to discuss an issue that affects 600,000 people in the short term, and possibly 2 million more. Perhaps it is a measure of the Conservatives' guilt, or their lack of concern for the many innocent people who were duped as a result of legislation introduced by the previous Government.
My hon. Friend is right: the previous Government created a climate in which it was acceptable to rip people off by selling pension products. He is right to draw attention to the expensive advertising campaigns that were launched. He is correct also to draw attention to the previous Government's almost complete inaction when the scale of the problem became obvious.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about this matter because many people visit our constituency advice offices as a consequence of pension mis-selling. Some of the cases are horrendous. There are many widows of miners in my constituency, and it is heartbreaking trying to deal with the consequences caused by the mis-selling of pensions to their late husbands, who thought that they were providing well for their wives, but who, through no fault of their own, have left them in penury.
I turn to the actions of the new Government since our election on 1 May. With the encouragement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who also represents a mining area and whose constituency, like those of many of my hon. Friends, comprises many public sector employees—I called a meeting of the 24 worst-performing companies in an attempt to resolve the pension mis-selling problem. My main priority was to get them to act on the 600,000 priority cases involving people who are at or near retirement.
Some 24 people met me at the Treasury, and I could see from the looks on some faces that it had only just dawned on them that the problem affects real people, is causing real anger in the country and is affecting the reputation of a very valuable sector of the British economy. It is deplorable that a key high-performing, high-profit industry should have an appalling reputation that rivals that of Arthur Daley as a result of pensions mis-selling. It is in the interests of the industry and of the people affected to resolve the matter.
I challenged those companies to come to me within a month with details of how they intended to handle the cases, and I undertook to publish every month the details
1202
of their progress. I did not take such action in order to name and shame, as the newspapers have claimed, but because the people affected have a right to know that their Government are as concerned and as horrified about the problem as they are.
When I published the first results of the inquiry at the beginning of this month in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), I was horrified. The situation is worse than even I had expected. There is nothing to be gained by condemning the companies involved: they stand condemned by their own actions. I am anxious to ensure that people get redress quickly. I say to those companies—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that it is not acceptable to take short cuts that result in people being worse off at the end of the process than at the beginning.
I am worried by reports from some of my hon. Friends that some individuals are being put under unacceptable pressure to settle by companies that mis-sold them pensions as a means of improving their statistics in the returns that I am asking for. I am not prepared to be hoodwinked by such action. I know that responsible companies will be appalled that that is going on.
I am aware that companies are experiencing some difficulties. I have made it clear that, if they come to me with their difficulties and if they stand up to investigation, I shall be happy to act. If necessary, my hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform and I will talk to small and large companies in difficulty. I have asked those of my right hon. and hon. Friends whose ministerial responsibilities relate to pensions to ensure that pension funds in their areas are diligent in settling cases.
I accept the point that the insurance companies made to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. I am tired of excuses, but I shall take action if excuses are justified.
I understand that discussions are going ahead on the slowness of the regulatory authorities in dealing with special schemes to settle. The regulators are in no doubt about my determination to resolve the issue.
I have nothing to gain from criticising the regulators. We have to work together to resolve the issue. I am sure that those in this House and further afield will not miss the fact that one of this Government's early acts was to announce our determination to review and reform financial services regulation.
My hon. Friend has asked what further action I shall take. He has made several excellent suggestions, which I shall consider. I shall not go into detail, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand why. In the autumn, I must decide what further action I must take to ensure the swiftest possible progress on the issue. I shall rule nothing out. That means that I shall take account of the powers I already have, and if new powers are required, I shall not hesitate to seek a means of acquiring them.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of independent financial advisers. They have managed to escape the main brunt of the Government's criticism—not because we are lax on them, but because there are 6,000 of them and we are currently researching their performance. I am largely appalled by the stories that I have heard from that sector as well. There is a need for better training and better standards. My hon. Friend is right to point to the plans that we are likely to have for the future of pensions. We shall bear in mind our

1203
experience in resolving the mis-selling of pensions when we look to the future. My hon. Friend is also right to make the case for transparency.
My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to tell the pensions industry that I want to co-operate with it to ensure that it gives people security well into the next century. The only way to secure that is by ensuring that we resolve this fiasco as quickly as possible. In the next few months, I shall encourage those of a younger generation who have bought personal pensions to check those products so that we can be sure that there is not a
1204
time bomb for the future, left to us by a previous Government who were more interested in a quick buck than in the well-being of the most vulnerable in our community.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again. He can be assured that the new Labour Government will do everything in our power to resolve the problem of the mis-selling of personal pensions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Three o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which her Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9575]

  Clare Short
  The information available includes staff of Afro-Caribbean origin with those of African origin. With that qualification, the information is as follows:

  Pay band minimum

  Asian

  Percentage

  African and Afro-Caribbean

  Percentage

  £50,000

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  £42,500

  0

  0.0

  1

  3.4

  £30,000

  3

  6.0

  2

  4.0

  £23,000

  2

  6.9

  2

  6.9

  £19,250

  2

  11.8

  0

  0.0

  £16,500

  4

  16.0

  4

  16.0

  £12,500

  1

  2.4

  5

  11.9

  £10,000

  0

  0.0

  6

  25.0

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades 1 to 5 in her Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9568]

  Clare Short
  Staff of Asian and Afro-Caribbean origin are not currently represented in posts formerly classified as grades 1 to 4. In posts formerly classified as grade 5, the Department employs one member of staff of Asian origin, representing 2.3 per cent. of such posts, and one member of staff of Afro-Caribbean origin, 2.3 per cent. We aim to do better.

  World Poverty
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the Government Departments with which she is co-operating directly with respect to the provision of overseas aid and the eradication of world poverty; and if she will make a statement. [10135]

  Clare Short
  Consistency in Government policy on issues affecting poorer countries is a key element in the remit of the new Department for International Development in the elimination of global poverty and promotion of sustainable development. My Department therefore co-operates as appropriate with other Departments, in particular with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; HM Treasury; the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Department of Health; the Department for Education and Employment; and the Ministry of Defence.

  Aid (Economic Reform)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria her Department uses to determine whether a satisfactory degree of economic reform has been implemented for the purposes of receiving overseas aid; and if she will make a statement. [10137]

  Clare Short
  We look to work in countries that wish to implement sound macro-economic policies aimed at laying or preserving the foundations for sustainable economic growth based on prudent budgeting, effective and transparent fiscal disciplines and efficient markets. At the same time, we look for a demonstrable commitment to eliminate poverty by expanding opportunities for sustainable livelihoods and human development through increased access to basic education, basic health and clean water for all.

  Aid and Trade (Review)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the review of aid-and-trade provision will be completed; and if she will make a statement. [10138]

  Clare Short
  The review of the aid-and-trade provision will be done in the autumn. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt any findings of the review by making a statement at this stage.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the know-how fund. [10139]

  Clare Short
  The know-how fund provides flexible technical assistance to central and eastern Europe and central Asia adjusting to the transition to democracy on an efficient economy. I am reviewing its activities as part of the process leading up to the publication in the autumn of a White Paper on international development to adjust to progress achieved and the need to address growing inequality and poverty in transition countries.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many civil servants there are in total on each pay band in her Department. [9576]

  Clare Short
  The Department has yet to adopt a system of pay bands and, for the time being, designations applied hitherto remain in use. On this basis, the numbers are:

  Number

  Senior civil service posts

  43.5

  Grade 6

  51.0

  Grade 7

  93.5

  Senior executive officer and equivalents

  49.5

  Higher executive officer and equivalents

  145.0

  Administration trainee/HEO(D)

  12.0

  Assistant economist

  10.0

  Assistant statistician

  3.0

  Executive officer and equivalents

  174.5

  Administrative officer and equivalents

  322.0

  Administrative assistant and equivalents

  124.0

  Aid Target Date
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons it is not her policy to set a target date for reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product for official development assistance; and if she will make a statement. [9195]

  Clare Short
  As I have repeatedly made clear, we are committed to reversing the decline in the proportion of our GNP spent on development assistance, which was 0.52 per cent. and rising in 1979, is now 0.27 per cent. and almost halved under the previous Administration. My policy is to reverse the decline in our spend rather than make false promises and continuing cuts, as did the previous Government.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce measures relating to data protection. [10430]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Later this Session, we shall be bringing forward a data protection Bill to give effect to the European Community data protection directive. We hope shortly to publish a paper setting out the Government's proposals.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Prison Service audit report. [11171]

  Mr. Straw
  Our manifesto said that the Prison Service faced serious financial problems and that we would audit the resources available.

  Therefore, shortly after taking office, I asked the Director General of the Prison Service to carry out an audit of the resources available to the Prison Service, and current and projected demands on it.

  The audit has now been completed and I am today placing a report of its findings in the Library.

  The main findings are:
  the prison population rose by 17,000 or nearly 40 per cent. in the four years up to this June to reach 60,580. It is expected to rise to at least 68,900 by March 2000. In the three months since the election, it has risen by 2,440, far exceeding any projection published before 1 May. This three-month rise is equivalent to the total capacity of four average-sized prisons:
  resources have not kept pace with this rise in numbers. The building programme approved by the previous Government is already being outstripped by the rise in population, which on latest assumptions will exceed maximum capacity later this year, and will do so again by a larger margin by early 1999:
  the number of prisoners "doubled"—held two to a cell designed for one—has already increased from 7,251 in 1992 to 10,926 at the end of June and, on current plans, would have to increase to around 16,000 by early 1999;
  meanwhile, the level of purposeful activity for prisoners has dropped over the last two years, so limiting scope for reducing the risk of prisoners re-offending on release;
  760
  there is growing risk of prisons having to close because heating, electrical and water systems, roofs and other infrastructure have not been adequately maintained.

  I pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the Prison Service in coping with these intense pressures.

  I announced yesterday in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), Official Report, column 682, that the Prison Service will be able to spend up to an extra £43 million during this year and next to accommodate the projected numbers safely.

  Full Sutton Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instigate an inquiry into damage that occurred to the personal property of prisoners in the aftermath of the disturbances on 20 January at Full Sutton prison with particular reference to damage to(a) personal stereos, (b) clothing and (c) books. [9981]

  Ms Quin
  No. Claims for compensation for prisoners' property damaged during the January disturbance at Full Sutton prison are being dealt with through the normal Prison Service request and complaint procedures. Although the Prison Service does not accept liability for loss of personal property held by prisoners in their cells, it has been agreed in this instance to make ex-gratia payments to prisoners who were innocent victims of the disturbance. Those prisoners who are judged to have been involved in the disturbance will not be liable for compensation.

  Prisoners who are not satisfied with the outcome of these procedures may appeal to Prison Service headquarters and, if still not satisfied, to the independent prison ombudsman. In addition, all prisoners retain the normal right of any citizen to seek to recover legitimate losses through the courts.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the prison population of(a) males and (b) females, in each of the past five years; and what is the forecast population for both groups for each of the next three years. [10174]

  Ms Quin
  Information on the average population for 1992–96 is contained in table A. Long-term projections of the prison population in England and Wales are produced annually and were last published in the Home Office statistical bulletin 7/97 on 3 April 1997. The projected average population figures for 1997 to 2000, including a higher and lower variant, are as set out in the attached table B. On 18 July 1997, the prison population stood at 62,300 which is 1,700 higher than the central projection for mid-July.

  Table A: Average population in prison in England and Wales 1992–1996

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1992

  44,240

  1,577

  45,817

  1993

  43,005

  1,561

  44,566

  1994

  46,983

  1,811

  48,794

  1995

  49,068

  1,979

  51,047

  1996

  53,019

  2,262

  55,281

  761

  Table B: Projected average populations for 1997–2000

  England and Wales average population—central projection

  Percentage increase on previous year

  Total population projection

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total1

  Lower variant

  Upper variant

  1997

  57,800

  2,600

  60,500

  5.5

  58,800

  62,200

  1998

  61,000

  2,800

  63,800

  5.5

  61,900

  65,700

  1999

  62,500

  2,900

  65,500

  2.7

  63,500

  67,500

  2000

  63,800

  3,000

  66,800

  2.0

  64,600

  69,000

  1 Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Mandatory Minimum Sentences
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 June,Official Report, columns 775–76, what assumptions he made in respect of (a) the deterrent effects of the mandatory sentences and (b) the likely effect on the length of other sentences when forming his estimates as to the likely increase in the prison population as a result of the implementation of each of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [10258]

  Mr. Michael
  The estimates assume that the deterrent effect on those who are liable to mandatory minimum sentences—that is, offenders who have one qualifying conviction for serious violent or sex offences, or two qualifying convictions for trafficking in class A drugs or domestic burglary—will reduce the requirement for prison places by 20 per cent. The estimates also include an allowance of 1,000 prison places for indirect effects of the provisions on sentence levels, if all are implemented.

  Release of Information (Criminal Prosecutions)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of criminal prosecutions undertaken in 1996 in respect of the unauthorised release of information, citing the Acts of Parliament involved. [10616]

  Mr. Michael
  In 1995, there were no prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act 1989. Information for 1996 will be available in the autumn.

  Information on the numerous other statutory provisions covering the disclosure of specific kinds of information is not available centrally.

  Metropolitan Police Files
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of files held by the Metropolitan police are kept(a) on computer files exclusively, (b) on paper files exclusively and (c) in both forms. [10614]

  Mr. Michael
  I am informed that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the commissioner has provided me with the following information. All centrally registered files which deal with administrative and operational matters, and case papers, are exclusively in paper form. Certain branches including the aliens registration office and the lost property office have their own central registry and all their files are in paper form. Major inquiries, crime reporting and criminal records are all held electronically.

  Road Crimes
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill to address(a) dangerous driving, (b) speeding, (c) careless driving and (d) other crimes which take place on the roads. [10564]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no plans to include specific measures relating to dangerous driving, speeding or careless driving. The Bill will give effect to manifesto commitments relating to young and adult crime and disorder, many of which may relate to crimes which are committed on the roads.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr. Hancock) of 18 July,Official Report, column 344, if he will list the matters which are considered in the assessment as to whether a particular procedure should be approved under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [10695]

  (2) in the case of procedures carried out for commercial gain, what criteria need to be satisfied before approval is given under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [10683]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Applications for all project licences must satisfy the criteria set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 5(3) sets out the permissible purposes of the work; section 5(4) requires that the likely adverse effects to the animals concerned be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue; section 5(5) requires applicants to give adequate consideration to alternatives; and section 5(6) prohibits the use of cats, dogs, primates and equidae unless no other species is suitable or it is not practicable to obtain animals of another suitable species.

  When the cost-benefit assessment required by section 5(4) is carried out, the importance of the objectives; the probability that these objectives will be achieved; the potential adverse effects to the animals involved; and the measures for reducing these adverse effects must all be taken into account. This assessment of benefit and severity is described in more detail in appendix II of the 1993 report of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  I understand that, as part of its review of the operation of the Act, the Animal Procedures Committee is preparing an extended statement on the principles and operation of cost-benefit assessment.

  When the benefits are assessed, the potential financial gain which may accrue from the sale of any product is not considered. Broader economic and social benefits, such as

  763
  cheaper or more accessible medicines or other products, or reduction in costs to the taxpayer may be taken into consideration. Animal use is often required not by the commercial organisation, but by national and international regulations which protect human safety.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9680]

  Mr. Straw
  (a) In the period from 1 May 1997, no announcement has been made to abolish any Home Office quangos. The opportunity to review these bodies will be taken in line with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), on 18 June, Official Report, column 174.

  (b) I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), on 24 July, Official Report, column 693.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Scottish Record Office to achieve in 1997–98. [11094]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for 1997–98:to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the Records of Scotland by 4.5 per cent. in real terms;
  to increase the number of catalogue entries available for public scrutiny on the electronic system by 50,000;
  to produce material for readers in 92.5 per cent. of cases in 30 minutes or less for material from the same building and in two days or less for material from elsewhere;
  to issue replies to 85 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, absorbing up to a 2 per cent. increase in demand; and
  to obtain the necessary additional funding to set up the Scottish archive network project as a business and to begin to put finding aids onto the Internet.

  Children's Centres
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many children's centres there are in Scotland; and if he will list them by area health boards; [10155]

  (2) what plans he has to extend provision of children's centres; and what steps he has taken in this respect to date. [10156]

  Mr. Dewar
  There are centres providing paediatric care in all major centres of population in Scotland, including at the three specialist children's hospitals in Edinburgh—Lothian health board—Aberdeen—Grampian health board—and the Royal hospital for sick children, Yorkhill,764
  Glasgow—Greater Glasgow health board. Each health board is responsible for planning to meet the health care needs for its resident population, including children.

  David Elder Infirmary, Govan
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the Greater Glasgow health board site of the former David Elder infirmary in Govan, Glasgow. [10154]

  Mr. Dewar
  Greater Glasgow health board has concluded that the former David Elder infirmary is no longer required for use by the national health service in Glasgow. Its disposal is a matter for the health board.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what public access there is under the Data Protection Act 1984 to computer files previously held by the police but now lodged with M15. [10685]

  The Prime Minister
  Any request under the Data Protection Act 1984 for access to data held by the Security Service would be considered on its merits.

  However, the Data Protection Act provides for personal data to be exempt from the subject access provisions of the act if the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

  The Act also provides for exemption from the subject access provisions of the Act of personal data held for the purpose of discharging statutory functions where the data consist of information obtained for that purpose from a person who possessed it for the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and where access would be likely to prejudice those purposes.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people are employed in his policy unit. [10607]

  The Prime Minister
  As at 23 July, there were 12 officials and six support staff.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of special advisers to the Government are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8970]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on ethnic origin is collected from civil servants on a voluntary basis. Figures for special advisers are not held centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Defender Service
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will initiate a pilot English Public Defender Service in youth courts to parallel the experiment scheduled in Scotland. [9928]
  765
  Mr. Hoon
  We have not ruled out the possibility of using employed solicitors, or solicitors under specially-designed contracts, for particular sorts of work if those would be the most suitable arrangements. We are open to the idea of using specialist employed lawyers to represent defendants in disputed cases in the youth courts. We will be watching the progress of the Scottish pilot with interest.

  Bar (Code of Conduct)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects matters relating to the amendments to the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales relating to bankruptcy and attendance at police stations will be submitted to(a) him and (b) the designated judges. [9625]

  Mr. Hoon
  The amendments are being considered under section 31 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, at the request of the Bar Council. The amendments are to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor by the end of July and will be sent to the designated judges thereafter.

  Barristers and Solicitors
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list the 10(a) barristers and (b) solicitors who received the highest total payments from public funds in the last available year; [9865]

  (2) if he will list those barristers paid over £100,000 out of public funds in the latest available year. [9864]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Personal Injury
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many personal injury actions have been automatically struck out under County Court Order 17 rule 11 in each of the last three years. [9780]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 25 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your question about the number of personal injury cases struck out in the last three years.
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend County Court Order 17 rule 11; and if he will make a statement. [9783]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor is considering the revised judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bannister v SGB plc. and Others issued on 4 July 1997 with a view to deciding whether action should be taken to amend order 17, rule 11 of the county court rules.
  766
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many personal injury cases struck out automatically under County Court Order 17 rule 11 have been appealed(a) to circuit judges and (b) to the Court of Appeal in each of the last three years; and how many appeals were successful in each category. [9782]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 25 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your question about the number of personal injury cases appealed in the last three years.
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Database
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many locations a common database has been introduced between courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and barristers' chambers; what evaluation he has made of the success of these schemes; and what proposals he has to extend these schemes. [9868]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 25 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your question about the number of locations at which a common database has been introduced.
  A common database has not yet been introduced. However, the CCCJS (a Home Office body responsible for the 'Co-ordination for Computerisation of the Criminal Justice System') is currently deciding whether to proceed with a project that will consider the introduction of a common standard for information across the criminal justice system. This project may also consider establishing a standard database. More immediately, the CCCJS has piloted and evaluated an initiative to link criminal justice agencies in Suffolk and Southampton by e-mail. The scheme has been recommended for replication and the Court Service, in conjunction with the CCCJS and local agencies, has identified other potential sites for this facility. Work is in hand to expand this initiative. Details of court lists are also sent electronically to list distributors, who in turn forward these to subscribers. Subscribers include barristers' chambers, solicitors and the Prison Service.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 561, what are the targets for each TEC for special needs training. [10303]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of contracted starts for which TECs will receive payment,(a) for those endorsed as having special training needs on entering youth training,

  767
  (b) for those with disabilities on entering training for work, for each TEC are:

  TEC

  (a)

  (b)

  Hampshire

  590

  481

  Heart of England

  300

  155

  Isle of Wight

  119

  55

  Kent

  900

  656

  Milton Keynes

  400

  131

  Surrey

  150

  187

  Sussex

  302

  507

  Thames Valley

  905

  428

  Aztec

  150

  159

  Focus Central London

  986

  1,748

  London East

  327

  582

  North London

  385

  251

  North West London

  190

  296

  Solotec

  823

  832

  West London

  100

  228

  Bedfordshire

  365

  151

  Cambs

  78

  129

  Essex

  553

  513

  Greater Peterborough

  209

  206

  Hertfordshire

  157

  291

  Norfolk and Waveney

  275

  683

  Suffolk

  250

  200

  Devon and Cornwall

  784

  889

  Dorset

  310

  255

  Gloucestershire

  297

  191

  Somerset

  283

  196

  Westec

  545

  539

  Wiltshire

  213

  172

  Birmingham

  336

  1,372

  Central England

  240

  147

  Coventry

  194

  390

  Dudley

  200

  170

  Hereford and Worcester

  93

  270

  Sandwell

  271

  262

  Shropshire

  255

  128

  Staffordshire

  203

  452

  Walsall

  100

  93

  Wovlerhampton

  88

  111

  Greater Notts

  200

  295

  Leicester

  350

  555

  Lincolnshire

  500

  430

  North Derbyshire

  247

  195

  North Notts

  350

  465

  Northants

  300

  175

  South Derbyshire

  310

  363

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  720

  479

  Bradford

  565

  270

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  850

  352

  Humberside

  1,263

  600

  Leeds

  554

  401

  North Yorkshire

  900

  250

  Rotherham CCTE

  356

  347

  Sheffield

  602

  443

  Wakefield

  245

  200

  Cewtec

  416

  496

  Merseyside

  1,585

  1,347

  St. Helens CCTE

  255

  183

  Bolton Bury

  135

  259

  Cumbria

  510

  255

  Eltec

  300

  290

  Lawtec

  585

  465

  Manchester

  1,000

  710

  Metrotec

  175

  190

  North and Mid Cheshire

  508

  250

  Oldham

  400

  185

  Rochdale

  250

  169

  South and East Cheshire

  250

  142

  Stockport and High Peak

  158

  150

  Co. Durham and Darlington

  1,158

  539

  Northumberland

  340

  310

  Sunderland City

  325

  351

  Teesside

  1,030

  720

  Tyneside

  880

  828

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9679]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has not so far announced plans to abolish any of its quangos, or non- departmental public bodies. However, it is currently examining the role and responsibilities of each of our NDPBs as part of the Department's current spending review. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced last month a review of NDPBs with the aim of reducing overall numbers across Whitehall.

  The issue of democratic accountability will also be addressed on an across-Whitehall basis with the launch in the autumn of a discussion paper considering how democratic oversight of NDPBs might best be enhanced. In the light of consultation, it is proposed to bring forward proposals in a forthcoming White Paper on better government.

  Workskill
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has made to extend workskill pilots for the unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [11172]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Regulations have been approved by Parliament to allow four more workskill pilots to be introduced on 1 September 1997 to run for one year. These pilots will allow people who have been receiving jobseeker's allowance for six months or more to undertake employment-related education and training for up to one year:full-time, in Scotland in the Glasgow and Dumbarton districts and in the north-west region in Lancashire and Cumbria districts; and
  part-time, in London and south-east region in south and south-east London districts and in the south-west region in Wiltshire, Avon and Somerset districts.

  About 12,000 unemployed people will be able to benefit from the flexible arrangements to take up education or training: provision for 8,000 in these new pilots in addition to 4,000 in the pilots introduced in four areas last April.

  The extension of workskill pilots supports our plans in the new deal where we are acting urgently to improve the employability and labour market prospects of the unemployed. The workskill pilots will help us to assess whether and how flexible arrangements in jobseeker's allowance help unemployed people to get and retain work, both in the short and long term.

  We will further review the jobseeker's allowance rules on education and training in the light of the workskill pilots and early experience in the new deal.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Chauffeurs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the average weekly pay of chauffeurs employed for driving ministerial cars; [10532]

  (2) what are the average numbers of hours per week, including overtime, worked by secure chauffeurs for Government Ministers; [10531]

  (3) what proportion of chauffeurs or drivers of ministerial cars (a) died in employment and (b) retired prematurely on health grounds in each of the last five years. [10533]

  Dr. David Clark
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Government Car and Despatch Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Nick Matheson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 24 July 1997:
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your three Parliamentary Questions about chauffeurs and drivers of ministerial cars. I am the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) which is responsible for the Government Car Services (GCS).
  I will answer the questions in the same order, but I would like to prefix my reply by saying that information on drivers of ministerial cars cannot readily be separated from the rest of the GCS allocated drivers within the time available for this reply.

  1. Information on GCS drivers' rates of pay is commercially sensitive.

  2. For 1996–97 GCS drivers worked on average 70.23 hours per week. The basic week is 49 hours, and the average overtime worked was 21.23 hours.

  3. For the whole of GCS the information is as follows:

  Year

  Total number of drivers

  Died in service

  Medically retired

  1997 to date

  139

  2

  1

  1996–97

  149

  nil

  2

  1995–96

  151

  1

  2

  1994–95

  154

  nil

  nil

  1993–94

  154

  nil

  1

  "Government Direct" Green Paper
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the Government's policy on "Government Direct"; and if he will make a statement. [10391]

  Dr. David Clark
  The "Government.Direct" Green Paper contained many good ideas on making the best use of new technology and the new White Paper, "Better Government" will harness these with an agenda which will bring Government closer to the people and provide better services for everybody. We are continuing to consult interested parties who responded to the Green Paper.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Minister without Portfolio regarding(a) the content and (b) the timing of publication of the White Paper on freedom of information. [10610]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have discussed the Government's proposals for a White Paper on freedom of information with many ministerial colleagues including the Minister without Portfolio.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will release the papers available to Ministers at the meeting on Thursday, 10 July where it was decided not to publish the White Paper on freedom of information before the summer Adjournment. [10573]

  Dr. Clark
  I will ensure that factual and analytical material relevant in forming the White Paper's proposals is made publicly available and I will bear this in mind as we approach the publication of the White Paper.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the Acts of Parliament which(a) contain provisions restricting the release of information and (b) apply criminal sanctions in respect of the unauthorised disclosure of information. [10574]

  Dr. Clark
  The previous Government's 1993 White Paper, "Open Government"—Cm 2290—listed those statutory provisions which restrict the release of information. Many of these Acts also make provision for criminal sanctions in the case of unauthorised disclosure.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if proposals to amend the 1977 Croham directive in respect of the release of background detail and information behind ministerial decisions will be included in the forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information. [10611]

  Dr. Clark
  The Government remain committed to the principles contained in the Croham directive but, 20 years on, they propose to build on them in their forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in respect of freedom of information regimes in other countries those countries which operate an appeal mechanism based on(a) the courts, (b) an independent ombudsman or commissioner and (c) a select committee or other parliamentary mechanism. [10609]

  Dr. Clark
  The table summarises the basic appeals mechanisms used in a number of leading freedom of information regimes.

  Country

  Courts

  Ombudsman/Information Commissioner1

  Select Committee or other parliamentary mechanism2

  USA

  Yes

  No

  No

  Canada

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Australia

  Yes

  Ombudsman or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

  No

  New Zealand

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  771

  Country

  Courts

  Ombudsman/Information Commissioner1

  Select Committee or other parliamentary mechanism2

  France

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Sweden

  Yes

  No

  No

  Ireland

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  1 Where the appeals mechanism incorporates both an Ombudsman and the courts and/or parliamentary review mechanism the appeal is usually directed to the Ombudsman in the first instance.

  2 Although Parliament may not play a formal role, the Ombudsman may still be an Officer of Parliament.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the statutory reforms recommended in the "Open Government" White Paper 1993, Cm 2290, which have been implemented. [10615]

  Dr. Clark
  The 1993 "Open Government" White Paper—Cm 2290—proposed two new statutory rights: (i) a statutory right for people to see their personal records held by Government and by other public sector authorities, and (ii) a statutory right of access to health and safety information. Neither was implemented.

  The White Paper also proposed the selective insertion of "harm tests" into criminal provisions covering unauthorised disclosure of information as legislative opportunities arose. No such amendments were made.

  These proposals of the previous Government will be superseded by comprehensive proposals for a Freedom of Information Act in our forthcoming White Paper.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps her Department is taking to persuade the Irish Government to withdraw their territorial claim to Northern Ireland. [7721]

  Majorie Mowlam
  The Government have consistently made clear their view that a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland will require a consensus on constitutional issues, reflecting the widespread support which exists for the principle that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

  In a speech in Northern Ireland on 16 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that changes to the Irish constitution to reflect the consent principle would be a helpful confidence-building step in advance of any settlement.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the annual report and accounts of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency will be made available to the House. [11222]
  772
  Majorie Mowlam
  Copies of the annual reports and accounts of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for the financial year 1997–98. [11223]

  Mr. Worthington
  The following key targets have been set for the agency for 1997–98:

  1. to have 75 per cent. of company development programme client companies using NVQ-based training to raise the competence of their work force;

  2. to encourage the commitment of Northern Ireland industry and commerce to the investors in people standard through the achievement of 50 new recognitions by March 1998, at least 25 of these to be achieved by companies in manufacturing or tradable services, or hotels registered with the NI Tourist Board;

  3. to ensure that of the trainees who commenced mainstream jobskills in 1995–96, at least 45 per cent. achieve NVQ Level 2 or above;

  (This target reflects the fact that a number of trainees will leave the programme, before completing their NVQ, in order to take up employment and other opportunities.)

  4. to place 40,000 people into jobs and

  5. to achieve efficiency savings of at least 6 per cent.

  Copies of the agency's "Operational Plan 1997–98" will be placed in the parliamentary Libraries.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10183]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: Departments carry out policy reviews on a continuous basis.

  Major reviews currently in progress are as follows:
  The Training and Employment Agency is reviewing its objectives and measures aimed at assisting the long-term unemployed back to work. Results are expected by the autumn.
  The Department of Education (NI) is conducting a policy review of the Youth Service which will make recommendations for its future development. The report is expected by end-December 1998.
  The Department of Education (NI) is conducting a review of school discipline to produce a strategy for the promotion and maintenance of good behaviour in schools. This will be published by Christmas 1997.
  The Northern Ireland Office is carrying out a review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to assess whether it remains relevant, effective and proportionate to the level of public safety demanded by society today and the reasonable expectations of the shooting community and firearms trade. Completion is expected in October 1997.

WALES

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 251, what is the population of the designated assisted areas of Wales; and how much of that population is in (a) the M4 corridor and (b) the A55 corridor. [10147]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The total population of the designated assisted areas in Wales is estimated to be 2.1 million, of which 550,000 are estimated to be in the eastern M4 corridor and 180,000 in the eastern A55 corridor.

  School Closures
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many infant, junior, primary and secondary schools were closed between 1979 and May 1997 in each county of Wales indicating how many closed(a) for financial reasons, (b) as a result of demographic change and (c) for other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [10245]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 24 July 1977]: The information requested is not held centrally. Details of the number of primary and secondary schools in each of the former counties of Wales in 1979 and 1996—the latest available data collected in this form—are shown in the following table:

  January 1979

  January 19961

  Maintained primary schools2

  Clwyd

  266

  241

  Dyfed

  354

  310

  Gwent

  285

  211

  Gwynedd

  200

  191

  Mid Glamorgan

  319

  301

  Powys

  131

  105

  South Glamorgan

  174

  157

  West Glamorgan

  201

  165

  Wales

  1,930

  1,681

  Maintained secondary schools

  Clwyd

  33

  32

  Dyfed

  25

  31

  Gwent

  32

  33

  Gwynedd

  23

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  41

  43

  Powys

  12

  13

  South Glamorgan

  30

  26

  West Glamorgan

  28

  27

  Wales

  224

  228

  1Includes grant maintained schools.

  2Primary schools comprise 3 types of school: infants' for children aged 5 to 7, junior for those aged 7 to 11 and combined junior and infants for both age groups. Many primary schools also provide nursery classes for children aged under 5.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what would be the cost of sending the White Paper to every home in Wales prior to the referendum on a Welsh Assembly. [8463]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  We do not intend to send the White Paper to every home in Wales, and I have therefore made no such assessment.
  774
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his meetings with Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats relating to his proposals for a Welsh Assembly. [9883]

  Mr. Davies
  I have had no meetings with Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrat party.

  Further Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people aged 16 to 19 years were attending(a) colleges of further education and (b) sixth-form colleges at each of the colleges in Wales in the last academic year; what percentage left these colleges (i) with one, two or three A levels grade 'C' and above, (ii) with A-levels A to E and (iii) with NVQ levels 2 and 3; and what percentage left the colleges without a recognised qualification. [8917]

  Mr. Hain
  The data collected centrally relate to students at college entered for examinations and do not permit analyses of students' qualifications as they leave college. Information on the number of people aged 16 to 18 attending further education colleges, including those described as sixth-form colleges, in Wales in December 1995 is given in the following table:

  People aged 16 to 18 years at Further Education colleges in Wales at December 1995

  College

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Aberdare college

  135

  136

  Afan college

  488

  34

  Barry college

  638

  222

  Bridgend college

  611

  391

  Carmarthenshire college of Technology and Art

  886

  401

  Coleg Ceredigion

  290

  146

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  1,464

  276

  Coleg Llandrillo

  1,112

  249

  Coleg Llysfasi

  124

  120

  Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor

  815

  44

  Coleg Menai

  2,057

  2,026

  Coleg Powys

  673

  255

  Deeside college

  647

  305

  Gorseinon college

  1,223

  20

  Gwent Tertiary college

  3,484

  631

  Merthyr Tydfil college

  302

  115

  Neath college

  1,298

  158

  Pembrokeshire college

  686

  139

  Pencoed college

  162

  26

  Pontypridd college

  1,105

  241

  St. David's VI Form college

  708

  0

  Swansea college

  1,261

  249

  Welsh college of Horticulture

  84

  53

  Yale college

  1,654

  264

  Ystrad Mynach college

  487

  108

  Source: The college performance information booklet: 1996. Further Education institutions in Wales.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9682]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have set out my proposals in the White Paper, "A Voice for Wales" published on 22 July, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of junior doctors who have working conditions which do not meet the standards laid down in the new deal for junior doctors. [10576]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No estimate is available of the percentage of junior doctors effected, but the most recent survey carried out by the postgraduate school of the accommodation and facilities provided for junior doctors by district general hospitals in Wales showed that four out of 19 hospitals surveyed were not meeting the standards laid down.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of war pensioners likely to be living in England in the years(a) 2000, (b) 2005, (c) 2010 and (d) 2015. [9139]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Number of war pensioners

  2000

  230,000

  2005

  190,000

  2010

  150,000

  2015

  120,000

  1. Figures include both war disablement pensioners and war widows.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners currently live in(a) England, (b) the city of Manchester and (c) the borough of Trafford. [9143]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Estimated figures are set out in the table:

  Area

  Number of war pensioners

  England

  250,000

  Manchester

  4,500

  Borough of Trafford

  under 1,000

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the quangos within her Department's responsibility which she has to date announced her intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9672]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 June,Official Report, column 174.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful claims there were for housing benefit in the Chelmsford local authority area by(a) council house/housing association tenants, (b) private sector tenants and (c) home owners in June for each year since 1990. [10307]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Housing benefit recipients in Chelmsford, by tenure, May 1990 to May 1996

  Local authority tenants

  Housing association tenants

  Private landlord tenants (excluding housing associations except for 1990 and 1991)

  May 1990

  4,510

  n/a

  1,490

  May 1991

  4,730

  n/a

  1,170

  May 1992

  4,960

  280

  1,010

  May 1993

  5,090

  160

  1,450

  May 1994

  5,240

  650

  1,360

  May 1995

  5,110

  810

  1,350

  May 1996

  4,910

  920

  1,350

  Notes:

  1. The information refers to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Information relating to housing association tenants was not collected separately prior to May 1992.

  4. No information is available for home owners as generally they are not eligible for housing benefit.

  Source:

  Department of Social Security Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. caseload count with and without income support taken at the end of May in each year given.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy that the combined real value of child dependency addition and child benefit for the child of a widowed mother is at least maintained at its present real level in future upratings. [10567]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committee to retaining universal child benefit from birth to age 16, and to uprate it in line with prices. The rates of all benefits are reviewed annually.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the combined value of child dependency addition and child benefit for the child of a widowed mother(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) as a percentage of average earnings, in November 1979 and at each subsequent uprating date. [10566]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the tables:

  Child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency increase for first child

  Uprating date

  Cash paid (£ per week)

  Cash as a percentage of average earnings at each uprating date

  Real value at April 1997 prices (£ per week)

  Real value as a percentage of average earnings at April 1997

  November 1979

  11.10

  11.0

  28.79

  7.8

  November 1980

  12.25

  10.2

  27.56

  7.5

  November 1981

  12.95

  9.8

  26.02

  7.1

  777

  Child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency increase for first child

  Uprating date

  Cash paid (£ per week)

  Cash as a percentage of average earnings at each uprating date

  Real value at April 1997 prices (£ per week)

  Real value as a percentage of average earnings at April 1997

  November 1982

  13.80

  9.7

  26.09

  7.1

  November 1983

  14.10

  9.0

  25.43

  6.9

  November 1984

  14.50

  8.7

  24.92

  6.8

  November 1985

  15.05

  8.4

  24.52

  6.7

  July 1986

  15.15

  8.0

  24.28

  6.6

  April 1987

  15.30

  7.7

  23.49

  6.4

  April 1988

  15.65

  7.2

  23.12

  6.3

  April 1989

  16.20

  6.8

  22.15

  6.0

  April 1990

  16.90

  6.4

  21.11

  5.8

  April 1991

  17.95

  6.3

  21.08

  5.7

  October 1991

  18.95

  6.5

  21.92

  6.0

  April 1992

  19.40

  6.4

  21.85

  6.0

  April 1993

  19.80

  6.2

  22.01

  6.0

  April 1994

  20.00

  6.1

  21.68

  5.9

  April 1995

  20.25

  6.0

  21.24

  5.8

  April 1996

  20.70

  5.9

  21.20

  5.8

  April 1997

  20.95

  5.7

  20.95

  5.7

  Child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency increase for subsequent children

  Uprating date

  Amount paid (£ per week)

  Cash as a percentage of average earnings at each uprating date

  Real value at April 1997 prices (£ per week)

  Real value as percentage of average earnings at April 1997

  April 1991

  17.95

  6.3

  21.08

  5.7

  October 1991

  18.20

  6.2

  21.06

  5.7

  April 1992

  18.65

  6.1

  21.00

  5.7

  April 1993

  19.05

  6.0

  21.18

  5.8

  April 1994

  19.25

  5.9

  20.87

  5.7

  April 1995

  19.50

  5.8

  20.46

  5.6

  April 1996

  19.95

  5.7

  20.43

  5.6

  April 1997

  20.20

  5.5

  20.20

  5.5

  1. The average earnings of full time adult employees was calculated using the "New Earnings Survey" and "Average Earnings Index", both produced by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) was used to put Child Benefit and WMA child dependency addition into real terms as at April 1997. This was then compared with the provisional average earnings for April 1997 to give the percentage quoted.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the lower and upper national insurance contributions limits if they had been increased in line with average earnings since 1980; and what would be the current effect on the annual yield from contributions if(a) the lower limit, (b) the upper limit and (c) both limits were increased to those levels. [10571]

  Mr. Denham
  The lower and upper earnings limits for class 1 national insurance contributions and the lower and upper profits limits for class 4 national insurance contributions are linked to the level of the basic retirement pension. If the basic retirement pension had been uprated since 1980 in line with the higher of earnings or prices the weekly lower and upper earnings limits for 1997–98 would be £86 and £645 respectively and the annual lower 778
  and upper profits limits would be £9,653 and £33,540 respectively. The estimated full year effects of limits set at these levels for 1997–98 are shown in the tables.

  Estimated full year effects of weekly lower and upper earnings limits for class 1 national insurance contributions set at £86 and £645 respectively in 1997–98

  Change in annual yield, £ million

  Weekly lower earnings limit—£86

  Weekly upper earnings limit—£45

  Weekly lower earnings limit and weekly upper earnings limit—£645

  Class 1 employees

  Gross

  -1,880

  +1,970

  +90

  Rebate

  -235

  +190

  -50

  Net

  -1,645

  +1,785

  +140

  Class 1 employers

  Gross

  -140

  0

  -135

  Rebate

  -480

  +350

  -130

  Net

  +340

  -350

  -5

  Class 1 total

  Gross

  -2,015

  +1,970

  -45

  Rebate

  -715

  +535

  -180

  Net

  -1,300

  +1,435

  +135

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Estimated full year effects of annual lower and upper profits limits for class 4 national insurance contributions set at £9,653 and £33,540 respectively in 1997–98

  Change in annual yield, £ million

  Annual lower profits limit—£9,653

  Annual upper profits limit—£33,540

  Annual lower profits limit and annual upper profits limit— £33,540

  Class 4

  -250

  +165

  -80

  Notes

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that individuals deciding to contract out of SERPS are sent before making that decision, a simple explanation of the scheme and the respects in which it differs from occupational and personal pension schemes. [10572]

  Mr. Denham
  We publish a booklet NP46 "A Guide to Retirement Pensions" which contains a comprehensive guide to SERPS and information on contracting-out of SERPS. This is available from DSS offices.

  On 17 July, we announced a wide-ranging review of pensions which will address nine fundamental challenges. One of these is to raise awareness of pensions and improve the level of financial education so that people understand the importance of saving for retirement and make the right choice about which pension product is best for them.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the weekly state basic earnings-related and total pensions payable to men and women on average earnings and half average earnings
  779
  reaching pension age in (a) 1997, (b) 2007, (c) 2017, (d) 2027, (e) 2037 and (f) 2047, (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of their pre-retirement earnings, assuming that the basic pension and the earnings limits for contributions are uprated in line with (1) prices and (2) average earnings. [10570]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the tables:

  Table 1: Amount of standard rate basic RP from April 1997, rounded to the nearest 5p in cash prices

  £

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Uprated by prices

  62.45

  76.05

  92.70

  113.00

  137.70

  167.90

  Uprated by earnings

  63.30

  89.55

  126.70

  179.25

  253.60

  358.75

  Table 2: standard rate basic RP as a percentage of male and female average earnings as at April in the year preceding retirement; assuming basic RP is uprated in line with prices

  Per cent.

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male

  16

  14

  12

  10

  9

  7

  Female

  22

  19

  16

  14

  12

  10

  Table 3: standard rate basic RP as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in the year preceding retirement; assuming basic RP is uprated in line with prices

  Per cent.

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male

  37

  27

  23

  20

  17

  15

  Female

  43

  37

  32

  27

  24

  20

  Table 4: standard rate basic RP as a percentage of male and female average earnings as at April in the year preceding retirement; assuming basic RP is uprated in line with earnings from April 1997

  Per cent.

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Female

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Table 5: standard rate basic RP as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in the year preceding retirement; assuming basic RP is uprated in line with earnings from April 1997

  Per cent.

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Female

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  780

  Table 6: Additional Pension based on a person with average earnings throughout their working life expressed in cash prices and as a percentage of male and female average earnings as at April in the year preceding retirement; assuming basic RP and earnings limit increase in line with prices

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £80.80

  £111.20

  £144.90

  £195.20

  £224.10

  £313.30

  Male (as percentage of average earnings)

  20

  20

  18

  17

  15

  14

  Female (cash prices)

  £52.00

  £72.40

  £97.10

  £137.50

  £189.30

  £264.40

  Female (as percentage of average earnings)

  18

  18

  17

  17

  17

  16

  Table 7: Additional Pension based on a person with half average earnings throughout their working life expressed in cash prices and as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in each year; assuming basic RP and earnings limit increase in line with prices

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £31.40

  £44.10

  £59.60

  £85.20

  £120.60

  £180.00

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  16

  16

  15

  15

  15

  16

  Female (cash prices)

  £16.20

  £23.90

  £33.50

  £49.40

  £75.30

  £115.70

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  11

  12

  12

  12

  13

  14

  Table 8: Additional Pension based on a person with average earnings throughout their working life expressed in cash prices and as a percentage of male and female average earnings as at April in each year; assuming basic RP and earnings limit increase in line with earnings from April 1997

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £80.80

  £110.80

  £146.00

  £203.20

  £271.40

  £386.50

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  20

  20

  18

  18

  17

  17

  Female (cash prices)

  £52.00

  £72.00

  £95.40

  £133.30

  £181.20

  £258.10

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  18

  18

  17

  16

  16

  16

  Table 9: Additional Pension based on a person with half average earnings throughout their working life expressed in cash prices and as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in each year; assuming basic RP and earnings limit increase in line with earnings from April 1997

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £31.40

  £43.00

  £58.00

  £81.00

  £110.60

  £157.60

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  16

  15

  15

  14

  14

  14

  Female (cash prices)

  £16.20

  £23.50

  £31.80

  £45.20

  £65.30

  £93.40

  781

  Table 9: Additional Pension based on a person with half average earnings throughout their working life expressed in cash prices and as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in each year; assuming basic RP and earnings limit increase in line with earnings from April 1997

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  11

  12

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Table 10: Total RP expressed in cash terms and as a percentage of male and female average pre-retirement earnings as at April in each year; where basic RP is uprated by prices

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £143.20

  £187.20

  £237.60

  £308.20

  £381.00

  £481.20

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  36

  33

  30

  27

  24

  21

  Female (cash prices)

  £114.50

  £148.50

  £189.80

  £250.50

  £327.00

  £432.30

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  40

  37

  33

  31

  29

  27

  Table 11: Total RP expressed in cash terms and as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in each year; where basic RP is uprated by prices

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £93.80

  £120.10

  £152.30

  £198.20

  £258.40

  £347.80

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  47

  43

  38

  35

  32

  31

  Female (cash prices)

  £78.60

  £100.00

  £126.20

  £162.40

  £213.10

  £283.60

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  55

  49

  44

  40

  37

  35

  Table 12: Total RP expressed in cash terms and as a percentage of male and female average earnings as at April in each year; where basic RP is uprated by earnings

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £144.10

  £200.30

  £272.70

  £382.50

  £525.00

  £745.30

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  36

  36

  34

  34

  33

  33

  Female (cash prices)

  £115.30

  £161.60

  £222.20

  £312.60

  £434.80

  £616.80

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  40

  40

  39

  38

  38

  38

  782

  Table 13: Total RP expressed in cash terms and as a percentage of half male and female average earnings as at April in each year; where basic RP is uprated by earnings

  1997

  2007

  2017

  2027

  2037

  2047

  Male (cash prices)

  £94.70

  £132.50

  £184.60

  £260.30

  £364.10

  £516.40

  Male (as percentage of half average earnings)

  48

  47

  46

  46

  46

  46

  Female (cash prices)

  £79.50

  £113.00

  £158.50

  £224.40

  £318.80

  £452.20

  Female (as percentage of half average earnings)

  56

  56

  55

  55

  56

  56

  Notes:

  1. Assumed real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. a year and prices increase by 2 per cent. per annum. Retirement date is assumed to be the 1 April of each year in question.

  2. All amounts are in cash prices. Amounts of AP are rounded to the nearest 10p, amounts of RP are rounded to the nearest 5p.

  3. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  Source:

  Average earnings are taken from the New Earnings Survey 1996.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee was set up; what is the remit of the committee; if he will list the chairmen of the committee since 1967 indicating the years in which they served; what reports the committee produces; and what is the current security classification of each of the reports. [10404]

  Dr. Reid
  The Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee was established in 1959. Its current terms of reference are to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the services and other interested MoD authorities on all safety matters pertaining to nuclear weapons systems, including issues of design, manufacture, transport, storage, handling and operational training.

  The present chairman of the committee is Professor Sir John Cadogan CBE FRSE HON FEng FRS; he was appointed in 1992. The previous chairmen, both of whom are deceased, were appointed on the understanding that their names would remain confidential. The production of reports is dependent upon the business of the committee at any given time. The classifications of reports range from restricted to top secret.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories his Department used to define the damage caused to its aircraft which have crashed; and when his Department instituted these categories. [10405]

  Mr. Spellar
  For administrative purposes, aircraft are assigned one of five damage categories. These are defined as follows:

  Category 1—damage repairable on site by established first-line maintenance personnel.

  Category 2—damage repairable on site by established second-line maintenance personnel.

  783

  Category 3—damage repairable on site but beyond unit technical resources. Assistance from a repair and salvage unit or civilian contractor is required.

  Category 4—damage is not repairable on site and the aircraft must be removed to a established repair depot or civilian repair organisation.

  Category 5—aircraft is damaged beyond economic repair or is missing.

  Records show that the first use of the numeric system appeared in 1956.

  Nuclear Weapons (US Aircraft)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the use of United Kingdom airspace by United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. [10691]

  Dr. Reid
  United States aircraft transporting nuclear weapons for logistical purposes are permitted to use United Kingdom airspace. As I told the hon. Member in my answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 61, all movements of nuclear materials, including weapons, by US personnel within the UK and its airspace take place in full consultation with my Department. This enables appropriate safety cover to be provided by MoD personnel.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answers of 16 June,Official Report, column 5, and 14 July, Official Report, columns 14 15 on anti-personnel landmines, when he was informed that it was not the case that all British anti-personnel land mines had been taken up following conflicts in the Falkland Islands and the Gulf. [9666]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: On 13 July 1997.

  Mission Statement
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department's mission statement will include expenditure objectives; [10118]

  (2) if he will list the benchmarks by which Parliament will be able to measure his Department's progress on its mission statement; [10119]

  (3) if his Department's mission statement will include an ethical objective; [10120]

  (4) if he plans to publish his Department's mission statement before the summer Adjournment. [10121]

  Dr. Reid
  The precise coverage of the Ministry of Defence's mission statement remains under consideration. We do not now expect to issue the mission statement before the summer Adjournment.

  RAF Strike Command
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sum is allocated to maintaining RAF strike command in the current financial year; and what that is as percentage of the defence budget. [10117]
  784
  Dr. Reid
  Cm 3602 "The Government's Expenditure, Plans 1997–1998 to 1999–2000", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, identifies a total planned allocation for RAF strike command in the current financial year of £1,722 million, representing 7.89 per cent. of the total planned defence budget.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stockpiles exist in the United Kingdom of(a) biological weapons and (b) chemical weapons; in how many locations these are kept; and what total volume of each existed within the United Kingdom in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1986, [10693]

  Dr. Reid
  The United Kingdom has not possessed an offensive biological weapons capability since shortly after the second world war. The UK gave up its offensive chemical weapons capability in the 1950s and had disposed of its stocks of such weapons by 1960. Indeed, we are party to the 1972 biological and toxin weapons convention and the 1993 chemical weapons convention, which explicitly ban the stockpiling of biological and chemical weapons.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government (Sanctions)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what approach he will adopt when considering applications for sanction by local authorities under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [11144]

  Ms Armstrong
  As required by the statute, we shall decide each application on its merits having regard both to our policy on sanction applications and to the circumstances of the individual case concerned. Our policy is to continue the approach previously followed, namely, that the power to sanction should not be exercised too widely. Sanction may be appropriate in those cases where the expenditure is incurred in good faith, but in ignorance of the strict letter of the law, or inadvertently without observance of requisite formalities, or under such circumstances as make it fair and equitable that the expenditure should not be disallowed by the auditor.

  In accordance with our commitment to open government, we are today sending to the Local Government Association, the Audit Commission, the Commission for Local Administration and to all local authorities in England a departmental note setting out the basis on which applications for sanction under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Financial Act 1982 are to be made and considered. I am arranging for copies of the note to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the concentration of mesothelioma in the last 10 years. [10536]
  785
  Angela Eagle
  A detailed analysis of the geographical concentrations of mesothelioma in the period 1976 to 1991 was published in "Health and Safety Statistics 1995–96"—pages 7–75 and table 2.18—a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors are being taken into account by the Environment Agency in deciding whether to authorise the establishment of a mixed oxide plant at Sellafield. [10694]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is considering British Nuclear Fuels' application for commissioning and operation of the Sellafield mixed oxide plant. It will take into account issues relevant to justification, risks to the public and environment, national policy on radioactive waste management and the UK's international obligations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of extra(a) flights, (b) movements by sea and (c) movements by road of radioactive material which would result from the opening of a mixed oxide plant at Sellafield. [10689]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The production and transportation of mixed oxide—MOX—fuel at Sellafield are matters for the site's operators, BNFL.

  (a) I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), Official Report, 21 July, column 420.

  (b) and (c) I understand from the company that MOX fuel has been produced and shipped from the Sellafield site since the 1960s. The new Sellafield MOX plant—SMP—is expected to produce its first fuel towards the end of 1998. In common with previous shipments, transport of finished MOX assemblies from the SMP will be by road and/or rail for onward shipment by air or sea as appropriate. However, delivery direct to the customer by road and/or rail is not precluded.

  The number of movements associated with the dispatch of finished fuel assemblies will result in only a marginal increase in the existing number of commercial movements from Sellafield.

  The packages used for these movements, by road, rail, sea or air, are approved and certificated for use within the United Kingdom by this Department, and must be transported in accordance with UK statutory safety requirements.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9681]

  Angela Eagle
  The Assessment Panel for Construction Research—an advisory non-departmental public body—was wound up on 14 July 1997.
  786
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, gave to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on 24 July 1997, Official Report, column 693, on the extension of democratic accountability to quangos.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued on the consideration of issues of crime prevention in the planning process. [10257]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Circular 5/94, entitled, "Planning Out Crime", was published in February 1994 and gives advice to local authorities, developers and designers about planning considerations relating to crime prevention.

  Painshill Copse Gipsy Site
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the inspectors's report and decision on the public inquiry into the Painshill Copse gipsy site. [9967]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend issued his decision on this case on 23 July. He accepted the inspector's recommendation that permission be granted for the continued use of land at Lydia park, Painshill Copse as a residential gipsy caravan site, subject to conditions. I have sent the right hon. Member a copy of the decision letter and the inspector's report.

  New Homes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new homes that will be built in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [9785]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In recent years, my Department has not made national forecasts of the number of dwellings that will be built in future years. We are currently reviewing estimates of the requirement for housing up to 2016, and this will help to inform any future forecasts of house building levels.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8959]

  Angela Eagle
  The recruitment and employment of staff is the responsibility of each individual body which seeks to attract applicants from diverse backgrounds. The Department, for its part, is keen, wherever possible, to encourage equality of opportunity within non-departmental public bodies. The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Lorry Weights
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the decision on the 44-tonne weight limit for lorries will be announced. [10529]
  787
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is too soon to say. We are still considering the responses to the previous Government's consultative document and the wider policy implications.

  Driving Hours
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 254, on permitted driving hours, when he expects an opportunity will arise to amend legislation to give officers powers to prohibit the drivers of UK registered vehicles; [10579]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 3 July, Official Report, column 253, on the powers of traffic enforcement officers, in what ways the powers of enforcement officers to inspect and remove tachograph charts and to search for other evidence will be clarified; and when he expects an opportunity for amending legislation will arise. [10578]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We wish to remove any possible doubt that authorised examiners can enter and inspect vehicles in order to check tachographs and records and that they can require records to be sent to their offices for inspection and copying. These changes and those relating to the power to prohibit will require primary legislation and I can only reiterate that we will promote amending legislation when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Roads (A303 Improvements)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the improvements to the A303 Sparkford-Ilchester section approved at the public inquiry in August 1994 can proceed independently of the Salisbury bypass section of the A303. [9836]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This scheme is included in the accelerated review announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 19 June. We hope to announce the results of that review later this month.

  Vehicle Year Identifier
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will announce the results of its consultation paper on the vehicle year identifier. [10617]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We intend to make an announcement shortly.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of track access charges on rail freight operators. [10684]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All Railtrack track access agreements are subject to the approval of the Rail Regulator. Railtrack is expected to allow onto the network freight flows which can cover at least the marginal costs they impose. For traffic which cannot even meet these costs, track access grant is available in recognition of the environmental and wider social benefits of sending freight by rail rather than by road.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cars have been modified for use of unleaded petrol in each of the last five years. [10251]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information required is not held centrally. Most modifications to vehicles to enable them to run on unleaded petrol are likely to have taken place in the years immediately following the introduction of unleaded petrol in April 1987, encouraged by the duty differential in favour of that product. This is reflected in the rapid increase in unleaded petrol sales to 40 per cent. of total petrol sales by April 1991. From that date, subsequent increases in the sales of unleaded petrol are likely to be attributable primarily to the statutory requirement for new petrol-engined vehicles, with some time-limited exemptions, to be designed and constructed so as to be able to run on unleaded petrol, and from 1993, to the need for catalyst-equipped vehicles to use only unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of(a) cars, (b) motor cycles and (c) light goods vehicles, which are able to use (i) four-star petrol only, (ii) unleaded petrol only and (iii) either four-star petrol or unleaded petrol. [10249]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Vehicles which are able to use only unleaded petrol are generally those fitted with catalytic convertors. An estimated 7 million petrol-engined cars and light good vehicles are so fitted. An estimated 1.3 million cars and light goods vehicles not fitted with catalytic convertors must be able to use unleaded petrol. In addition some 604,000 motor cycles are estimated to be able to use unleaded petrol. The remaining 12.4 million cars and light goods vehicles and 130,000 motor cycles were originally designed to use leaded petrol. However, the experience of countries such as the United States and Sweden indicates that most of these can safely use premium or super-unleaded petrol as an alternative, with the addition of a lead-replacement additive if it is felt necessary to afford a greater degree of protection against the possibility of increased seat wear.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will impose standards on the advertising of seat belts installation services. [10234]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has produced advice notes, setting out what we consider to be best technical practice, for those involved in the installation of seat belts. The issue of trading standards is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry which has confirmed that legislation already exists to prevent traders from making false claims about their goods and services. Enforcement of these regulations is a matter for local trading standards officers.

  UK-Taipei Flights
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had, and with whom, about the bilateral civil aviation agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of China on Taiwan in respect of the number of flights between the United Kingdom and Taipei. [10515]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Flights between the United Kingdom and Taiwan are operated under an agreement between airlines.

  Air Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what destinations in the United Kingdom have ceased to be served by direct air services from London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports since 1979. [10079]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Domestic destinations that had direct air services from Heathrow and Gatwick airports in 1979, which have since ceased operating, are as follows:

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  Prestwick

  Bournemouth

  Norwich

  Exeter

  Liverpool

  Inverness1

  Humberside

  Teesside1

  Cardiff

  Prestwick

  Birmingham

  East Midlands

  East Midlands

  Blackpool

  1Inverness and Teesside continue to have direct services from Heathrow.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that during negotiations with the European Union sufficient slots are made available at major continental airports for the maintenance and development of air services from key regional centres of the United Kingdom. [10080]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission for revisions to the Council regulation governing airport slot allocation in the Community. On receipt of those proposals, we will take account of the needs of access to the continent from key regional centres in the UK in preparing our position for negotiations in the Transport Council.

  Portsmouth Port
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) tonnage of goods and (b) passenger numbers which passed through the port of Portsmouth in the last year for which figures are available; and in each case where Portsmouth ranked relative to other United Kingdom ports. [10334]
  790
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest figures available are taken from "Port Statistics 1995" published by HMSO.

  (a) In 1995, some 4.4 million tonnes of freight passed through Portsmouth. Portsmouth was the 20th largest port in the United Kingdom.

  (b) Passenger numbers are published only for international sea passenger traffic. In 1995, Portsmouth was the second busiest international passenger port in the United Kingdom with 3.3 million international sea passenger movements through the port. Portsmouth also has significant domestic traffic, however information supplied to the Department on UK domestic passenger routes is commercially confidential.

  A3
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) accidents and (b) fatalities occurred on the A3 in each of the last three years; and what percentage of each occurred in the Waverley local authority area. [10332]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  (a) Personal injury road accidents on the A3 were recorded as follows:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Injury accidents on the A3

  1,223

  1,105

  1,093

  Injury accidents on the A3 in Waverley

  107

  79

  88

  Percentage

  9

  7

  8

  (b) Road accident fatalities on the A3 were recorded as follows:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Fatalities on the A3

  9

  8

  11

  Fatalities on the A3 in Waverley

  2

  1

  0

  Percentage

  22

  13

  0

  Mrs. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of the A3 between London and Portsmouth are single carriageway; and if he will list their locations. [10333]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, dated 25 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about how many miles of the A3 between London and Portsmouth are single carriageway and where they are located.
  The A3 around Hindhead in south west Surrey is the last remaining section of single carriageway between Wandsworth in south west London and Portsmouth. It is approximately 4.1 miles in length.

  Street Works (Householders' Liability)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the liabilities of householders whose properties are located on road junctions to apportionments for street work arising from both frontages. [10390]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have no plans to review these provisions. As the law stands, it is open to a highway authority to adopt an unadopted street, but the frontagers are legally liable for the cost of any works necessary to bring it up to the required standard first; the charge is normally based on the respective lengths of the frontages of the properties which adjoin the street, though the highway authority may modify such an apportionment by taking into account the degree of likely benefit to individual householders when calculating their apportionments. It also has discretion to contribute towards the costs of the works as a whole or those borne by flank or rear frontages. Properties on private streets may be expected to cost less than they otherwise would, because of the liability for private street works expenses.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a consultation document on marine environmental high-risk areas; and if he will make a statement. [10403]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are completing the development of criteria to identify areas which are both of high environmental interest and at risk from shipping. Once these criteria have been developed, a decision will be taken on how the concept of marine environmental high-risk areas should be taken forward and appropriate consultations will be carried out.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to emphasise the Christian character of the Millennium celebrations at Greenwich. [8046]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: We recognise that the millennium is both a Christian anniversary and an important landmark for everyone who measures time by the Gregorian calendar. Physical and spiritual renewal will be one of the key themes of the new millennium experience at Greenwich. We shall be working closely with the Christian Churches, and with those of other faiths and none, to achieve this.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what was the cost to public funds of the launch of the millennium experience on 26 June. [7986]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The cost to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was £5,074.20.
  792
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many tourists he expects to visit the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. [8047]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) Official Report, 21 July 1997, column 392.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 324, what arrangements he made to ensure that he would be present in the Chamber on 21 July to answer the question about the millennium dome if it were reached. [10682]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have nothing to add to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in answer to the hon. Member's point of order on 21 July,Official Report, columns 700–01.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of broiler chickens infected with salmonella; and what was the percentage in each of the last 10 years. [8659]

  Mr. Rooker
  The levels of salmonella in broiler chickens are surveyed periodically at the retail stage. The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food produced a report on poultry meat in 1996 which contains details of Government-funded retail surveys on the prevalence of salmonella in UK-produced raw chicken. This information is set out in the table.

  Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in raw chicken, 1979–1994

  Survey

  Source and type

  Number of chickens

  Number (percentage) with salmonella spp.

  1979–80

  UK, frozen

  100

  79 (79)

  1987

  UK, frozen

  101

  65 (64)

  1990

  UK, frozen

  143

  77 (54)

  1994

  UK, frozen

  281

  114 (41)

  1987

  UK, chilled

  103

  56 (54)

  1990

  UK, chilled

  143

  58 (41)

  1994

  UK, chilled

  281

  93 (33)

  As can be seen from the table, the prevalence of salmonella in chickens on retail sale has declined markedly over the years. However, it remains essential to observe the normal rules of food hygiene when handling and cooking chickens in order to minimise the risk of food poisoning.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Ferranti Ltd. concerning where it was dumping radioactive waste prior to its agreement in July 1957 to dump it in Beaufort's Dyke. [9966]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Responsibility for dumping at sea and for the disposal of radioactive waste in Scotland rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland. His officials are currently in discussion with the company concerned, and, as undertaken in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 1 July Official Report, columns 158–60, any new information found will be reported to the House.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the time local veterinary inspectors spend inspecting animals destined for export to ensure they are fit to travel as required by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; and if he will make a statement; [10279]

  (2) if he will end the practice under which exporters of live farm animals can select which local veterinary inspector is to inspect the animals for export health certification purposes; and if he will make a statement; [10301]

  (3) if he will end the practice under which exporters of live farm animals make a direct payment to the local veterinary inspector to undertake the export health certification. [10300]

  Mr. Morley
  These issues are being considered as part of a departmental review of pre-export procedures for live animals. The conclusions of this review will be announced as soon as practicable.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many firms are paying(a) more and (b) less for supervising operations since the Meat Hygiene Service took over the supervision of meat hygiene. [10337]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service took over responsibility from local authorities for meat hygiene and inspection in licensed fresh meat premises on 1 April 1995.

  Information on the actual costs for meat inspection under local authorities is not available. Overall, the total cost of meat inspection has been substantially reduced, from an estimated cost of the service provided by local authorities of £45 million per annum to the total cost of the service provided by the Meat Hygiene Service in 1995–96 of £35 million. There is clear evidence that some local authorities were subsidising their costs in some way. This has inevitably meant that some individual operators are paying more than they did previously. On the other hand-meat inspection charges to other operators have fallen.

  Melatonin
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy towards foods containing melatonin. [10363]

  Mr. Rooker
  Foods containing the hormone melatonin, like all other foods in the UK, have to comply with the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990, for example they should be of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the consumer and not be injurious to health.

  Cattle Carcases
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle carcases are currently held in cold storage in Kent. [10354]

  Mr. Rooker
  No carcases from cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme are currently being held in cold storage in Kent, although some 160 tonnes of intervention beef is being stored in the county. Information on commercial stocks of beef in cold storage in Kent is not available centrally.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the cold store facilities currently available to take over-30-months scheme cattle in Kent. [10356]

  Mr. Rooker
  Four cold stores in Kent have been used for the storage of over-30-months scheme material. These are at Paddock Wood, Gillingham, Swanley and Thamesport. All of these stores have now been emptied of OTMS material and contracts are in the process of being terminated. We do not envisage the need to store OTMS material in cold stores in the future.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9677]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) In a news release on 28 May 1997, my right hon. Friend announced the disbanding of the Ministry's nine advisory regional panels.

  Additionally, action is being taken on the other MAFF quangos in line with the Prime Minister's written statement to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 June, Official Report, column 174.

  (b) Following the written statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on extending the democratic accountability of quangos to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on 24 July, Official Report, column 693, the Ministry's position will be reviewed.

  Silage Wrap
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he gives farmers concerning the safe disposal of black silage bag plastic. [9989]
  795
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 June 1997,Official Report, column 314.

  Avoparcin
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the proportion of poultry flocks which are administered the food additive avoparcin. [9992]

  Mr. Rooker
  In December 1996, the European Commission presented a proposal to the Standing Committee banning the use of avoparcin as an additive in animal feed. The proposal was agreed by qualified majority and the UK implemented the ban on the use of avoparcin as a feed additive by the 1 April 1997 deadline. Product licences containing avoparcin were revoked with effect from 31 March. Avoparcin is therefore no longer authorised as a feed additive for use in poultry flocks.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into links between avoparcin feed additive for poultry and vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections in humans. [9993]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government take very seriously the possibility of the development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals as a result of the use of antibiotics in animal feed. This is carefully examined as part of the safety assessment of applications for authorisations for antimicrobial products, and is kept under review by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee which advises the Government on the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines. In considering the use of antibiotics, the committee has consistently followed the principles established in the report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine—the Swann report—of 1969. The VPC evaluated the report on Avoparcin produced by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition and endorsed its conclusion that, on the basis of science the evidence presented did not establish a risk to human health, animal health or the environment.

  Apart from regular reviews by the VPC, a number of other recent initiatives into the issue of antibiotic resistance have been undertaken. The Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food has set up a working group to assess the risks to humans from antibiotic resistant micro-organisms entering the food chain. The working group is expected to report by the end of the year. Secondly, following the ban on avoparcin, a Commission working group has prepared a programme for the monitoring of resistance to a number of antibiotics in pigs and poultry. Samples are to be taken in slaughterhouses in a number of member states including the UK. The EU Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products has also set up an ad hoc working party to investigate the prevalence and effects of anitmicrobial resistance in animals and potential for transfer to man. Finally, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has established a sub-committee on resistance to anti-microbial agents. It aims to report in early 1998.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which industries are currently covered by minimum wage legislation; and what the minimum wage is in each for a 16-year-old casual worker. [10577]

  Mr. Morley
  Agriculture is currently the only industry covered by minimum wage legislation. Rates are reviewed annually in England and Wales. The minimum hourly rate of pay from 1 June 1997 for a 16-year-old casual worker undertaking agricultural work is £1.84. The rate for casual workers for anyone aged 19 and over is £3.06 per hour.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure the saleability of cattle born after 1 August 1996. [9543]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: We are discussing with the European Commission a proposal to allow the export of meat from cattle born after a specified date. The first of August 1996 is a key date as, from that date, it became an offence to use or possess mammalian meat and bone meal on a farm and remaining stocks on farms had to be surrendered by that date. This, together with the introduction of cattle passports in July 1996, means that we are able to offer additional safeguards in respect of animals born after that date to our trading partners.

HEALTH

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his top three priority issues in respect of each of the sub-headings to each area of responsibility listed in respect of the list of ministerial responsibilities of each of his Department's Ministers. [9816]

  Ms Jowell
  The list of ministerial responsibilities referred to is not a template for the priorities of the Department of Health. The broad scope of the Department means that each Minister has responsibility for particular areas of work, but priorities are set across the whole Department, and every Minister's areas of responsibility feed into them. For this reason, a list of issues categorised by the sub-headings in that list would not encapsulate our priorities.

  Public Health Initiatives
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce joint funding for health authorities and local authorities in respect of joint initiatives on public health. [10176]

  Ms Jowell
  Joint working between health and local authorities and other statutory and voluntary bodies will be an important element in delivering our manifesto commitments on public health. We shall be looking at ways to encourage co-operative working across such boundaries.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of mixed wards in psychiatric
  797
  hospitals with particular reference to the specific religions and cultural concerns of members of ethnic minority communities. [9968]

  Mr. Boateng
  We recognise that there are some problems for particular ethnic minorities. Our policy is set out in "The Patient's Charter and Mental Health Services" which says that"if you would prefer to be cared for in single sex accommodation your wishes will be respected wherever possible"
  In January this year, the NHS chief executive wrote to all health authorities and trusts to ask them to set targets in relation to upholding patient privacy and dignity including safe facilities for patients who are mentally ill.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the figures for deaths from solvent and volatile substances abuse by(a) region, (b) product abused and (c) age in the last year for which figures are available. [10223]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 30 June Official Report, columns 30–31. The report is also available on the Internet on http:/www.sghms.ac.uk/phs/index.htm.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9674]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not yet announced the abolition of any of the Department's quangos. However, the Department is to take part in a Government-wide review of quangos, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18 June,Offical Report, column 174, to identify any suitable for merger or abolition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced his intention that future national health service trust board meetings will be held in public. In addition, those appointed to serve on NHS trusts and health authorities will be more representative of the community they serve, including more users of NHS services, more carers and more people involved in representing the community's interests. These measures will improve the accountability of local NHS boards to local people.

  Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcal Infection
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infection there were in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 to date. [9994]

  Ms Jowell
  No central data on the number of cases of infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci are collected. However, national epidemiological data are compiled by the Public Health Laboratory Service, from isolates—specimens of bacteria isolated from patients—submitted voluntarily by hospitals in England and Wales for specialist microbiological tests. The total number of isolates submitted in 1996 was 1,800 and for 1997 the 798
  figure is 203 to the end of May 1997. These data do not record the number of affected patients or the proportion of cases of infection rather than colonisation—non-infected carrier state—with VRE. However, the PHLS estimates that about 10 per cent. of these totals represent cases of true infection due to the organism.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include mesothelioma as a topic for inclusion in the work carried out by(a) the UK Cochrane Centre and (b) the NHS centre for reviews and dissemination. [10534]

  Mr. Boateng
  The United Kingdom Cochrane centre and the national health service centre for reviews and dissemination plan to address mesothelioma in the context of their wider work on lung cancer.

  Cancer
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the 1995 expert advisory group on cancer; which recommendations have yet to be implemented; and what factors underlie the non-implementation of those recommendations not yet implemented. [10537]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have given their full support to the implementation of the recommendations of the 1995 expert advisory group on cancer and £10 million has been made available recurrently to improve the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The aim is to ensure that all women have speedy access to high quality diagnosis and treatment, based on Calman/Hine networks of cancer care. Guidance has been published on improving outcomes in breast cancer and on the provision of palliative care services.

  A great deal of work has already been undertaken within the national health service to implement the recommendations with much being achieved locally. A key element has been the identification of cancer units and centres and the local agreement of where and what cancers should be treated at each individual hospital. In many regions, this has involved site visits by multi-disciplinary teams to assess cancer provision against agreed cancer standards, to identify strengths and weaknesses and to agree a time scale for change.

  Although full implementation is planned to take some five to 10 years, we will continue to ensure that the programme is given a high priority. We are currently considering what further action should be taken both nationally and locally to ensure these improvements to cancer services are taken forward as quickly as possible.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the Government's Committee on Toxicity recommending restrictions on the use of vitamin B6 was published; and what further research has been conducted by the committee on toxicity since that date. [10667]
  799
  Ms Jowell
  A statement on the toxicity of vitamin B6 by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—was made available to the general public on 4 July 1997. Availability was announced in a Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food news release on Government action following COT and Food Advisory Committee advice on vitamin B6.

  It is not part of the COT's remit to conduct research. However, it does review the available data on the toxicity of chemicals; this is both papers published in scientific journals and submissions from industry. In this case, the COT considered more than 100 papers before coming to its conclusion.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received recently concerning the sale of vitamin B6. [10666]

  Ms Jowell
  Both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have jointly received approximately 1,000 letters making representations about vitamin B6. A significant proportion of these are in a standard format. However, on 23 July my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I met representatives of industry groups and nutritional therapy/alternative medicine interests, to listen to their views on the intended changes to the legislation controlling of vitamin B6 containing dietary supplements.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department concerning the effectiveness of vitamin B6. [10668]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not commissioned any research into the effectiveness of vitamin B6. Data from pharmaceutical companies, on the efficacy of medicinal products containing vitamin B6 have been evaluated by the licensing authority and its expert advisory bodies in relation to applications for marketing authorisation submitted to the Medicines Control Agency. Following grant of a marketing authorisation, the MCA continues to monitor efficacy in relation to safety for all authorised medicinal products, including those containing vitamin B6.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visitor Visas (Iraqi Citizens)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the issue of visitor visas to Iraqi citizens who are relatives of United Kingdom citizens where such visas are sponsored by the United Kingdom citizen; what humanitarian considerations are taken into account in the processing of such applications; and if he will make a statement. [10270]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Iraqi citizens seeking to visit relatives in the UK are considered under the terms of the UK immigration rules in the same way as any other visa national. However, all applications from Iraqi nationals between the ages of 18 and 65 and employees of certain Iraqi organisations are referred to London for clearance.
  800
  When considering any visa application, the entry clearance officer, no matter what the nationality of the applicant, will take into any relevant compassionate circumstances into consideration.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the papers in the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, No. IMM/ECR/0410/95/5 and Q4/40/97 were sent by the British high commission in New Delhi, to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and what is the current position on this case. [10451]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our high commission in New Delhi for a detailed account of the application and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving that account.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 1 July regarding a constituent. [10452]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My hon. Friend's letter was passed to the migration and visa division of this Department on 17 July for response. It aims to reply within 15 working days of this date, that is, 7 August.

  British Aerospace
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of British Aerospace on 16 July. [10453]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British Aerospace representatives asked to call to brief me on their overseas business interests in the Asia-Pacific region, including Indonesia. I took the opportunity to explain the background to the current review of criteria to be used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms.

  Sudan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the United Nations to establish a slave tracing programme to identify the location of slaves in Sudan and to bring about a reunion with their families. [10669]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The United Nations, through UNICEF, already has a programme to reunite families in Sudan. We fully support that programme and others with the same objective.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent dialogue he has had with representatives of Sudan's National Democratic Alliance; and how he intends to support their efforts. [10670]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I met the former Prime Minister, Sadiq al Mahdi, and an accompanying delegation on 19 May. Officials are in regular touch with representatives of the National Democratic Alliance in line with our policy of keeping open links to all sides in Sudan. We sympathise with many of the NDA's concerns about the present
  801
  Government in Khartoum. But we have no plans to support their efforts, which focus on overthrowing that Government.

  General Affairs Council
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council on 22 July. [11066]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The 36 A points in document 9959/97, the text of which will be placed in the House Library as soon as it is available, were approved.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament, listed in document 8776/97. A copy of that document will also be placed in the House Library as soon as it is available.

  The Council began with a debate on the Luxembourg presidency programme. The Luxembourg Foreign Minister outlined their priorities: the Special European Council on employment in October; preparation for enlargement; relations with Africa; and the fight against drugs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made it clear that we want to take forward the Agenda 2000 package presented by the Commission, with a view to the early launching of the next stage in the enlargement process. We also need to ensure that the EU focuses on issues of concern to its citizens: above all on jobs.

  The Commission presented its Agenda 2000 communication—covering enlargement, policy reform and future financing. Member states held an initial exchange of views. Three—Italy, Sweden and Denmark—opposed the Commission's recommendation that the EU should negotiate only with those central European applicants which it judged sufficiently prepared. There was a general recognition of the need for policy reform, but some of the principal CAP and structural and cohesion fund beneficiaries made clear their concerns. Detailed discussion will begin in the autumn, with a view to the Luxembourg European Council taking the necessary decisions so that accession negotiations can begin in early 1998, during the UK's presidency of the EU.

  On Iran, the Council agreed the continuing need for EU solidarity, including on the return of EU ambassadors to Tehran.

  The EU special envoy on the middle east peace process briefed the Council on developments in the region. The council discussed ways in which the European Union could contribute ending the current deadlock and to a resumption of negotiations on the basis of the agreements signed between the two sides. The Council had meetings with the Israeli Foreign Minister, David Levy, and the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat.

  The Council discussed a report from the European Commission on exports to the European Union from the occupied territories in the context of the European Community interim association agreements with Israel and the PLO.

  The Council briefly discussed the draft 1998 EC budget and in particular the level of structural funds payments.
  802
  The presidency and the Netherlands put forward new proposals on the trade aspects of the overseas countries and territories mid-term review, including quotas for rice—160,000 tonnes—and sugar—3,000 tonnes. There was no discussion and the item was remitted for further discussion in the working group, with a view to a decision being taken at the 15 September General Affairs Council.

  The Council agreed, by a qualified majority, the framework agreement on humane trapping standards and a list of countries from which the import of furs into the European Union will be permitted. It also agreed a declaration that the Commission would do everything possible to accelerate the implementation of the agreement. We argued that the Community should not put its name to an agreement which continued to allow the use of leghold traps, which we consider inhumane. The United Kingdom therefore voted against the framework agreement, with the support of Austria and Belgium. We also tabled a minutes statement explaining why we had voted against the proposal and pointing out that we consider the agreement to be an interim measure only and expect work to continue to ensure that the use of leghold traps is brought to an end as quickly as possible.

  The Council discussed the proposed EU/Jordan association agreement. We hope that this can be concluded as soon as possible.

  The Council reiterated EU support for OAU/UN efforts to resolve the crisis in Congo—Brazzaville. An EU contribution to any inter-African force is under consideration.

  The Council welcomed the holding of acceptable parliamentary elections on 29 June and 6 July in Albania. It urged Albanians to respect the results and to pursue the process of national reconciliation. The EU is committed to continuing its assistance to Albania, on condition that the Albanian authorities work towards stabilisation, democratisation and economic recovery. Law and order must be restored, while respecting human rights.

  The EU will co-operate closely with other international organisations under the co-ordinating framework of the OSCE. They encourage a "common international agenda" on Albania, in co-operation with the Albanian authorities.

  The high representative, Carlos Westendorp, reported to the Council on the situation in Bosnia. The Council condemned terrorist acts against SFOR and other international organisations and reiterated the international community's determination to penalise those responsible for failures to comply with the commitments agreed at the meeting of the steering board of the Peace Implementation Council at Sintra on 30 May.

TREASURY

  Accounting Systems
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries in the EU use(a) the public sector borrowing requirement and (b) similar cash-based accounting systems as their main guide in public finance; and which countries use an accruals-based accounting system. [8194]
  803
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Donald Gorrie, dated 25 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question on public finance.
  The ONS does not hold detailed information on how public finances are measured in other member states.
  However, all member states are required to calculate their General Government Financial Deficit (GGFD) in accordance with the European System of Accounts (ESA) second edition. This system applies a mixture of cash and accruals recording, depending on the type of transaction. The system accepts that, for public finances, cash measurement is acceptable for most transactions. GGFD statistics produced by member states are checked by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) to ensure compliance with the ESA.
  Most countries use cash measurement for expenditure and taxes in the GGFD. This is the statistic used to monitor performance for Economic and Monetary Union.
  For domestic purposes, member states use a variety of different statistics to monitor and control public finances. The ONS does not keep information on this.

  District Valuation Offices
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to review the proposed programme of closure and merger of district valuation offices; [9178]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the closure and merger of district valuation offices; and if he will make a statement. [9179]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is the responsibility of the Valuation Office. I have asked the acting chief executive to reply.

  Letter from Peter Upton to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 25 July 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions to the Chancellor (refs 9178 and 9179 of 15 July) in which you ask for information concerning the Agency's reorganisation proposals.
  The proposals for streamlining the Agency network of local valuation offices were detailed to constituency MPs in a letter of 19 July 1995 from the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Mrs Angela Knight. And on 10 May 1996 the VOA's former Chief Executive, John Langford, wrote to you in response to your concerns about the proposed closure of Burnley Valuation Office.
  Since this time, the Agency has been piloting its proposed new structure in the Leeds, York and Halifax offices and the results are due to be evaluated shortly.
  Dawn Primarolo, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Minister with responsibility for the VOA, has already been supplied with a good deal of background material on the restructuring initiative which she will be considering carefully and discussing the proposals with me very shortly. The plans are subject to ongoing discussions with national Trade Union representatives and she will be seeing them too.
  At the commencement of the restructuring programme the Agency advised all interested parties, including Members of Parliament and Local Authorities of the proposals.
  No final decision on implementing will be made before the views of all concerned have been carefully considered.
  I hope you will find the above helpful but if I can assist further then please let me know.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the forecasts for the level of United Kingdom interest rates used in the assumptions underlying his recent Budget statement. [9488]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: In line with the convention followed by previous Governments, I do not intend to publish the interest rate path underlying the Budget economic forecast.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effects of his recent Budget proposals on the level of future United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions; and if he will make a statement. [9482]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, (Mr. Taylor), on 18 July, Official Report, column 376.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the impact a 1 per cent. annual increase in road fuel duties above the existing 5 per cent. real rate of increase would have on carbon dioxide emissions in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [8912]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Previously published projections of carbon emissions in the year 2010 incorporate the effects of the 5 per cent. escalator to the year 2000. Real increases of 6 per cent. rather than 5 per cent. in the years to 2000 will reduce projected annual carbon emissions by around 0.2 million tonnes in the year 2010. Application of the 6 per cent. escalator for the life of this Parliament will provide savings of 2.5 million tonnes.

  Referendums
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if public money will be provided to campaigners in a referendum on the single currency; what the upper limit will be on permitted spending during such a campaign; and if he will make a statement. [10198]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The Government have not considered the detailed arrangements for any referendum on the European single currency. The Government are committed to holding a referendum if the Government and Parliament decide that the United Kingdom should join the single currency.

  Insulation Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money will be allocated per annum for insulation materials under the welfare-to-work environmental task force initiative to enable young people to insulate the homes of pensioners. [8986]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Some £3,150 million of the proceeds of the windfall tax has been allocated for the new deal for those under 25 who have been unemployed over six months. The environmental task force is one of four options for young people. The division of expenditure between these options will depend on the choices made by young people in consultation with designated case
  805
  workers and in the light of the opportunities available in each of the four options in that area. No overall expenditure has been specifically earmarked for insulation materials under the environmental task force.

  Private Schools (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated cost to the Exchequer of tax relief for the charitable status of private schools(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [10659]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on state pensioners' fuel bills of the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel; and if he will make a statement. [7663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average household would save £18 per year from a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 to 5 per cent. Pensioners will benefit most in proportion to income.

  Fuel
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of changes in the rate of excise on unleaded petrol on the use of unleaded petrol by those drivers whose cars are able to use either four-star or unleaded petrol. [10252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to calculate from the information available the impact of the changes in the rate of excise duty on unleaded petrol on those drivers who may choose whether to use four-star or unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the financial impact to the Exchequer of reducing the differential between the rate of excise on unleaded fuel and four-star fuel by 1p per litre and the rate of excise on city diesel by 1p per litre. [10255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Using the hon. Member's assumption, the impact of increasing the duty rates on unleaded petrol and diesel by 1p per litre would yield approximately £185 million and £165 million in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Costings take account of the effects on behaviour where they are likely to have a significant effect on the yield and any consequential changes in receipts from related taxes including VAT and are measured against a non-indexed base. City diesel, is currently taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel but is awaiting Royal Assent to the Finance Bill.

  Central Gilts Settlement System
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make the provision of services to sponsored members in the updated central gilts settlement system an authorisable activity under the Financial Services Act 1986. [11143]

  Mrs. Liddell
  When the House resumes in October, Her Majesty's Treasury will lay a statutory instrument extending the activities requiring authorisation under the 806
  Financial Services Act 1986 so as to cover the sending of dematerialised instructions on behalf of third parties and certain related activities to the central gilts office service.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of the removal of local authority self-financed expenditure from the control total for meeting(a) the Maastricht criteria, (b) the golden rule and (c) the control of public finance; [8021]

  (2) if he will remove local authority self-financed expenditure from the control total. [7927]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government have already announced their plans for 1997–98 and 1998– 99, in which local authority self-financed expenditure remains in the control total.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the appointment of special advisers to Her Majesty's Treasury. [1598]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [pursuant to her reply, 12 June 1997, c. 1276]: A model contract of employment and an outline of the pay system for special advisers, which were attached to the Prime Minister's minute of 19 May to Cabinet colleagues, have been placed in the Library of the House. The Prime Minister's minute was an internal Government document and it would not be appropriate to disclose its contents.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement concerning the appointment of members to serve on the Low Pay Commission. [11225]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appointed the following individuals to serve on the Low Pay Commission which will advise the Government on the rate at which the national minimum wage might be set:David Metcalf: Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics
  Stephanie Monk: Director of Human resources for the Granada Group
  Paul Gates: General Secretary of the Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades Union (KFAT)
  John Cridland: Director of Human Resources Policy for the CBI
  Rita Donaghy: Member of the National Executive Council of UNISON
  Lawrence Dewar: Chief Executive of the Scottish Grocers' Federation
  Bill Callaghan: Head of the TUC Economic and Social Affairs Department
  William Brown: Professor of Industrial Relations, Cambridge University
  Professor George Bain will chair the commission.
  807
  The national minimum wage is one of the Government's top priorities and for that reason we have moved quickly to put the commission in place. We advertised nationally for applications to the commission and were gratified by the large response and the high quality of the candidates. I am confident that, with such a high-quality membership, the commission will be able to go about its work effectively and successfully.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she was first notified that licences had already been issued for the continued sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia. [10393]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers were informed on 7 July 1997 that the licences granted in November 1996 for the export of 16 Hawk aircraft and equipment to Indonesia represented the second phase of Hawk sales to Indonesia agreed in principle in 1993.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will require the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe to publish a regular report on changes in his shareholdings; [10071]

  (2) what shareholdings the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness Europe holds. [10070]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Apart from his holding in BP, which the Minister has undertaken not to trade before 1 January 1998, he can no longer give a report of his shareholdings, or changes in them, since they have been placed in a blind trust. It would breach the protection against conflicts of interest the trust provides to ask the manager of the trust to publish the composition of the portfolio.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of gas liberalisation on the competitive position of gas companies relative to other energy companies; [10322]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of gas liberalisation on the share price of BP. [10323]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answers 24 July 1997]: The Government's policy is to press for the completion of the single market in energy, which will offer opportunities for all energy companies, and bring benefits for all of Europe's energy consumers.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if those matters relating to(a) gas liberalisation, (b) state aids policy and (c) biotechnological inventions currently subject to proposals in the European Community under evaluation by Her Majesty's Government have a bearing on BP. [9653]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: Some aspects of these matters or cases—for example, concerning state aids to BP's direct competitors—can have a direct or particular bearing on BP. Arrangements are in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise for the Ministers dealing with these matters as all others.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a private secretary from the DTI was present at the three meetings the Minister for Trade and 808
  Competitiveness has held with BP directors since becoming a Minister; what minutes were taken; and if she will publish them. [10492]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. These meetings were related to the handover of Lord Simon's responsibilities at BP or to allow him to say farewell to his colleagues. It would have been wholly inappropriate for the DTI to be represented at such occasions, although the right hon. Member might have enjoyed the minutes of his farewell party.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe is able to handle matters relating to tax in Brussels. [10427]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: The Minister is not normally involved in EU Council negotiations on tax. Like other Ministers, he could present Her Majesty's Government's position if necessary, unless there were a conflict of interest.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will be handling indirect tax and corporate tax proposals under the action plan for the single market in Europe. [10016]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The Minister is not normally involved in EU Council negotiations on tax. Like other Ministers, he could present Her Majesty's Government's position if necessary, unless there were a conflict of interest.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will be handling negotiations on pension funds in Europe under the action plan for the single market. [9788]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe attends the Internal Market Council. Pension funds will be dealt with in ECOFIN, which he does not attend. However, he will continue to play a role in all aspects of the single market, subject to the arrangements which are in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest can arise.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the official engagements of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe for the month of July. [9990]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister has a wide range of engagements both at the DTI and the Treasury in fulfilment of his role as Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe.

  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs stopped writing a column for the travel trade press; and on whose instructions. [10461]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs wrote a fortnightly column for a leading travel newspaper,Travel Weekly from 15 September 1993 until 31 April 1997. The paper is read primarily by Britain's leading travel agents and tour operators.
  809
  Since 5 May, any contributions to Travel Weekly, or any other travel trade press have been on an occasional and entirely unpaid basis, in accordance with the guidance in paragraphs 94–95 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the figures for(a) export orders and (b) numbers of firms operating at a satisfactory rate in the engineering sector in each of the last 15 months. [10325]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: Figures for export orders on hand at the end of each of the last 15 months are as shown in the table:

  Not seasonally adjusted £ million

  March 1996

  10,373

  April 1996

  10,412

  May 1996

  10,101

  June 1996

  9,695

  July 1996

  9,539

  August 1996

  9.908

  September 1996

  9,909

  October 1996

  9,711

  November 1996

  9,809

  December 1996

  9,358

  January 1997

  9,346

  February 1997

  9,443

  March 1997

  9,172

  April 1997

  9,441

  May 1997

  9,308

  Figures on the numbers of firms operating at a satisfactory rate in the engineering sector are not available from official statistics.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she plans to take to increase the levels of planned investment in the engineering industry. [10321]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: My agenda for pursuing competitiveness through partnership, starting with the competitiveness summit on 23 July, includes encouraging investment in industry, including the engineering industry. Engineering investment will also be encouraged by my policies for promoting technology transfer in the sector and encouraging good supply chain links. I welcome the actions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in laying the foundations for economic stability and introducing appropriate tax changes in the Budget, which will also improve the climate for investment.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the use of wind energy. [9596]

  Mr. Battle
  Wind Energy is a vital element of sustainable development and has the potential to make an important contribution to our new and strong drive to develop renewable sources of energy. I expect development of wind energy to lead to the creation of new jobs and access to a worldwide market for renewable energy equipment estimated by the World Energy Council to grow to £50 billion per annum by 2005.

  Astronomy
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry received before 14 July from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) concerning astronomy in the United Kingdom and the royal observatories. [10266]

  Mr. Battle
  It is for hon. Members to publicise their approaches to me, should they wish to do so.

  Trade Missions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what trade missions are planned for the next 12 months by(a) the Minister for Trade, (b) members of the royal family, (c) the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and (d) other departmental Ministers. [9454]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The following trade missions are planned at present. Details of visit programmes and accompanying business delegations have yet to be finalised.

  (a) Lord Clinton-Davis—Minister for Trade

  September 1997: Chile/Argentina

  September 1997: Korea/Japan

  October 1997: Qatar and possibly Saudi Arabia/Yemen

  December 1997: Poland/Czech Republic/Hungary

  (b) Members of the Royal Family

  The royal family's extensive programme of overseas visits plays an important part in the promotion of British commercial as well as other interests. The following visits specifically for trade promotions are planned during the next 12 months.

  HRH The Duke of Kent—Vice Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board

  October 1997: Korea

  April 1998: India

  September 1998: Colombia/Peru/Bolivia

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester

  September 1997: Yemen (with British Consultants Bureau)

  (c) Sir Martin Laing—Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board

  September 1997: Philippines

  October 1997: Peru

  November 1997: Egypt

  (d) Other Departmental Ministers

  Margaret Beckett—President of the Board of Trade

  November: 1997: Australia/India

  January 1998: China/Pakistan

  John Battle—Minister for Science, Energy and Industry

  November 1997: Angola/Botswana (provisional)

  Barbara Roche—Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry

  April 1998: Mauritius

  Space School
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Science Minister will visit the 17th session of the Space school currently being held at Brunel university; and if he will make a statement. [10527]

  Mrs. Roche
  Regrettably, I am unable to visit this year's Space school. However, I welcome efforts to explain the importance of space science to young people, and compliment the Space school on developing innovative ways to further their interest in science.

  Travel Industry
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy towards vertical integration in the travel industry; and if he will make a statement. [10530]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 14 July,Official Report, column 68.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Earl Cowley—Took the Oath.

Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I hope I may be permitted to say a few words on a matter not directly related to the Bill. I understand that today was the last occasion when we were led in our prayers by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I believe that your Lordships would wish to place on record our deep appreciation of his contributions to our proceedings over many years. His wisdom, his experience and, perhaps above all, his compassion for those who are underprivileged or vulnerable have offered us guidance which has been appreciated in every part of the House. I am old enough to remember his impressive feats in a different capacity. It is not given to everyone to achieve the highest distinction in two careers, and to that he has added a capacity for friendship which many of us have been privileged to share. I am sure he will take with him the affectionate recollection of every Member of your Lordships' House.
This Bill is intended primarily to address a problem which is almost universally recognised. Attempts to diagnose the reasons for the problem and to suggest remedies have not always attracted quite the same degree of unanimity. However, the process of consultation and discussion since at least the end of 1994 has brought about something akin to a consensus. Even on matters of detail I believe that the differences between us are narrowing.
Industrial tribunals were established by the Industrial Training Act of 1964. Since then their jurisdiction has been increased year by year and statute by statute. Originally at least, they represented the confluence of two processes. First, there was some feeling among those representing employees that the judiciary prior to the 1960s had sometimes failed to understand, still less to share, their perceptions of what was just and they looked for a way of resolving employment disputes which depended less on the courts. Secondly, there was at one time a mistrust of tribunals, exemplified in the book by Lord Hewart, then Lord Chief Justice, called The New Despotism and published in 1929. It was still influential in some circles when I was a student, although I hasten to add that that was nearly 50 years ago.
1578
That mistrust was evaporating by the 1960s. It has been accepted, at least since the Franks Report in 1957, that tribunals are a constituent part of the rule of law, and that they offer a number of advantages for a range of issues. They are less formal and rather more expeditious than the courts exercising more traditional jurisdictions; their members can offer an expertise and an experience in a specific field which it is difficult for the traditional courts to match; and the pattern of a legally qualified chairman and two members with experience and knowledge of the background against which disputes arise generates much confidence in those who appear before them.
The Donovan Report in 1968 recommended a substantial expansion in the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to include all the disputes which were distributed then among a variety of jurisdictions, to provide,
"an easily accessible, speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure".
for the settlement of disputes. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn had already made a similar plea in his book The Worker and the Law. He may be cheered to learn that I have a well thumbed copy on my shelves.
Since then the nature and the quantity of cases coming before industrial tribunals have expanded until, in 1996–97, the number of applications was 88,910 and the forecast for the year 2000 is over 109,000. Their standards are high. The service which they provide is one of which they can be proud. Perhaps this may be the moment to declare at least a potential interest. I am privileged to chair the Council on Tribunals. Among the 70 tribunal systems which are within our supervision are the industrial tribunals. In a succession of annual reports we have commented on issues that have arisen in relation to them as to other tribunals. But I see and I hear of them in practice. The public receives a most commendable service in return for the resources invested. I wish to pay tribute to the leadership and hard work of the president, Judge Timothy Lawrence, which I see at first hand, and to all those who form part of the system, whether judicial or administrative.
Nevertheless, the expansion of their workload has led to delays in the hearing of cases. Those responsible for the administration of industrial tribunals have made serious efforts to respond. In 1991 an internal efficiency scrutiny made recommendations to address the problem relating to listing practice, the numbers of sitting days for full-time chairmen, and training for administrators. In its annual report for 1995 the Council on Tribunals referred to a number of initiatives by the president, Judge Lawrence, such as standard procedures where there are late entries of appearance, or where applicants cannot be traced. The proportion of cases reaching a hearing within 26 weeks has risen from 56 per cent. in 1993–94 to over 78 per cent. in 1996–97.
But the problem persists, and is particularly worrying since one of the advantages usually associated with tribunals is their expedition. A further concern is that, owing to the increasing complexity of some of the legislation which industrial tribunals have to administer, their claim to informality, which is sometimes equated with an absence of legalism, is under some pressure.

1579
In December 1994, the Department of Employment, as it then was, published a Green Paper entitled Resolving Employment Rights Disputes—Options for Reform. It evoked some 200 responses. Virtually all of them agreed on the need to address the problems; most of them agreed in substance with the proposed direction of the Green Paper, although some discerned dangers in a number of the proposals and were concerned to suggest safeguards—including the Council on Tribunals.
In November 1995 the then Government brought together those proposals from the Green Paper which had secured substantial support, and published a draft Bill. It reflected many of the comments and qualifications that had been received. In July 1996 the draft Bill was circulated for further consultation. In response to that exercise, the department—now the Department of Trade and Industry—received 95 responses, mostly supportive, but some making further suggestions for safeguards.
The matter proceeded no further because the election intervened and the former government were no longer in a position to proceed. But the proposals were not by then greatly controversial, and the incoming Government considered the situation, made some amendments to the draft to reflect the comments that had been received in the course of the further consultations, and prepared a new Bill.
At this stage I should explain my symbiotic relationship with the Government in relation to the Bill. The Government would be pleased to see it on the statute book. So would I, and many others. But the Government, as your Lordships are already discovering, are faced with a heavy legislative programme. When I learnt that the Government did not intend to include the Bill in their programme for this Session but were prepared to make the text available to me, I ventured to introduce it, so that this House would not be denied an opportunity of considering it and, if it finds favour, of passing it for transmission to another place.
Time was not available to me for further consultations, nor for such redrafting as I might have been tempted to undertake. But I may say at once that I am not necessarily wedded to every jot and tittle in the Bill. I look forward today to hearing the contributions of those noble Lords who propose to participate, and naturally I shall then consider carefully what is said. Some noble Lords were kind enough to advise me in advance of suggestions that they may make during the course of our debates. There are a number of noble Lords whose expertise in this field probably always exceeded mine, and is now certainly more up-to-date than mine. I shall welcome any advice that they may tender.
But I hope I may be forgiven if, in order to keep expectations within realistic bounds, I make three provisos. First, there may be procedural limitations on the amendments or additions to the Bill. Secondly, the Bill has emerged from a long process of consultation and I feel inhibited in introducing major revisions without consulting those whose interests are most likely
1580
to be affected. Thirdly, the Bill's prospects of completing its pilgrimage successfully are substantially improved by the fact that it enjoys the good will of the Government. If I were to do anything which might endanger that good will, the prospects of survival for the whole Bill would be substantially reduced. On a number of matters which many of us would like to see enacted, the Government have already embarked on quite separate consultative processes, and if my noble friend Lord Haskel were to indicate that some proposals should be the subject of separate legislation, I would respect that. Subject to those comments, my mind is open and welcoming.
I turn now to the proposals in the Bill. Essentially they fall into two categories. Part I is designed to improve procedures in order to make better use of the tribunals' time and resources so as to assist them in coping with the workload. Parts II and III are intended to provide alternative means of resolving certain disputes, both in order to reduce the workload confronting tribunals and because in some cases they may prove to be a more satisfactory method of resolving the issues.
If I were to embark on an exposition of all the provisions in the Bill, I doubt whether I should earn your Lordships' gratitude. I hope I may be permitted simply to indicate the more important of them.
Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting tribunals in certain circumstances to determine proceedings without a full hearing. The first such circumstance is where the parties have given their consent in writing. One matter which has exercised my mind is whether it will be possible to ensure that the consent will operate only if each party had first received adequate advice.
Lord McCarthy: Hear, hear!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I fully understand my noble friend's concern and I think it is something which he and I may have a number of discussions about as the Bill proceeds. I hope he will not be disappointed if I say that I have reached the conclusion, at least provisionally, that it would not be appropriate to write that condition into the Bill, for two reasons.
First, I think we should be reluctant in principle to compel a party to take advice if he or she does not wish to do so. There is a right not to be advised if that is the individual's choice. That is the objection of principle. The more practical objection is that, if the Bill were to provide that consent would be ineffective in the absence of advice, it would be necessary for the tribunal and other parties to the proceedings to ascertain in advance of proceedings what advice had been given and taken, by whom and with what qualifications, since otherwise the determination would be invalidated. That would entail either an unacceptable administrative burden on all concerned or a continuing uncertainty as to whether or not the determination was valid. But, while for those reasons I would not seek to include in the Bill a provision about advice, it does not follow that I would not wish to see parties strongly encouraged to seek competent advice before consenting.

1581
The second situation in which provision is made for a determination without a full hearing is where the respondent has taken no steps to contest the case.
The third situation is where the applicant is seeking relief to which he or she is clearly not entitled, either because it is of a kind which the tribunal has no power to give or because it is clear on the face of the application that there is no entitlement—for example, if the applicant has not been in the respondent's employment for the requisite length of time.
The fourth situation is where the tribunal is bound by the decision of a superior court on the undisputed facts to dismiss the case.
It is thus hoped to minimise hearings which are simply wasted and to clear the lists for genuinely contested cases. In each of these situations existing rights of appeal or rights to apply to the tribunal for a review of the determination are, of course, preserved.
The fifth situation is where the proceedings relate to a preliminary issue.
In all these situations, what is proposed is that tribunals may be empowered in suitable cases to determine proceedings without a full hearing. It is not proposed to make that procedure mandatory; it would be for the tribunal to decide whether it was suitable in a particular case.
Clause 3 extends the situations in which a decision may be made by a chairman sitting alone. Perhaps I may interject here that, although in some of the circles in which I move the term "chairman" is now out of fashion, since it is used in statutes and in the Bill I propose to use it on this occasion.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am among those who believe that a tribunal of three persons brings strengths and advantages to proceedings relating to employment rights and I hope that the tribunal will continue normally to be constituted in that way.
The Green Paper suggested that in certain cases it should be mandatory for a chairman to sit alone. That proposal is not in the Bill. It would still be open to a chairman to sit in a tribunal of three if he or she thinks it appropriate in a specific case.
Clause 3 specifies a number of additional situations where it will be open to a chairman to sit alone. They relate to cases where it is unlikely that there will be major disputes of fact or arguments about what is fair or reasonable. Perhaps the most important relates to redundancy payments, where the dispute is normally over the application of a formula or sometimes simply where there has been a failure to pay money which is clearly due.
I turn now to the provisions relating to alternative methods of resolving disputes. Clause 7 empowers ACAS to prepare a scheme providing for arbitration in claims for unfair dismissal. At present it has no power to concern itself with arbitration in disputes between individual employees and employers. It will then be for the Secretary of State, if she approves the scheme, to
1582
make an order bringing it into effect. If that is done, the parties may, if they wish, agree in writing to submit their dispute to arbitration under that scheme and, if they do so, that will be an alternative to resolving the dispute by proceedings before the tribunal. They will in effect have agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of a tribunal.
I stress that no one will be compelled to submit their dispute to arbitration. This procedure depends on the voluntary agreement of the parties and the jurisdiction of the tribunal will be excluded only if the agreement comes about in the course of action by a conciliation officer or if it is done by way of a valid compromise agreement after independent advice.
I should also stress that the parties are not precluded, if they wish to do so, from submitting their dispute to a private arbitration not within the ACAS scheme as they may now; but, if they do so, the jurisdiction of the tribunal will not be excluded. This represents an important change from the proposals in the consultation paper. It was then proposed to enable parties to exclude the jurisdiction of the tribunal by referring the dispute to any form of arbitration. That proposal is now confined to arbitration within the ACAS scheme.
It is intended in the first instance to confine the subject matter of this provision to claims for unfair dismissal. As at present drafted, the Bill proposes to empower the Secretary of State to extend the provision to other forms of dispute and she would do so by an order subject to the negative form of parliamentary control.
It appears to me that there are two objections to that. The first is one of principle. The Council on Tribunals has long taken the view that a new jurisdiction should be created, where possible by primary legislation, and failing that by order subject to the affirmative procedure. What is proposed in Clause 7 is the creation of further jurisdiction.
Secondly, while your Lordships may think that arbitration may be eminently suitable to resolve some disputes relating to unfair dismissal, often more informally and more expeditiously than would be possible with industrial tribunals, that is not true of all types of dispute, where sometimes the legislative provisions are complex. A proposal to extend the option to other jurisdictions should be subject to full parliamentary control. Accordingly, I propose to move an amendment in Committee providing that any such order should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
One other provision, designed among other purposes to reduce the workload of tribunals, is found in Clause 13. It provides that in unfair dismissal cases, if an employee fails to avail himself of an internal procedure for appealing against dismissal, or if an employer prevents an employee from availing himself of such a procedure, that may be taken into account by the tribunal in deciding the compensatory award.
The purpose of that provision is to encourage parties to resolve the dispute at its source, where possible, in preference to complaining to the tribunal. That is a general principle which runs through many systems of jurisprudence. The question is asked, "Have you availed yourself of the more immediate remedies?"

1583
But there are three safeguards in the Bill: first, the amount of any reduction or supplementary award is limited to two weeks' pay; secondly, the provision operates against an employee only if he has been notified in writing of the existence of the internal procedure; and, thirdly, the tribunal has a general discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the case. The tribunal will, of course, take into account the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary practice and procedures, as required by Section 207 of the 1992 Act. That code declares it good practice to give notice of disciplinary action in writing and the employee should at the same time be told of any right of appeal. It also indicates that management should seek to secure the involvement of employees at all levels in introducing or changing new disciplinary procedures.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I mention only one other provision. I apologise for the length of time that I have delayed your Lordships but it is a somewhat lengthy Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill proposes to rename industrial tribunals as employment tribunals because that term conveys more clearly what their function is intended to be. Some of your Lordships may remember that in 1968 the Donovan Commission suggested a change of name to "labour tribunals" but their suggestion was never implemented. This appears to be a suitable opportunity to address the question.
One has only to glance at the provisions which now form the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to see how far we have come since the 1960s. There are rights for which some of us in this Chamber were campaigning for many years. The pendulum has swung backwards and forwards but in many ways we are a more just community than we were 30 years ago. Yet, justice depends on the effectiveness of its procedures and the price of effective procedures is eternal vigilance. The Bill is designed to tighten some procedural nuts and bolts. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)
11.30 a.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend on bringing forward this important measure and hope that the Government will find ample time for its examination. It is more than a privilege to follow him so directly in the batting. It had been suggested to me that, although this was a Friday, I might find myself placed further down the list as some kind of nightwatchman. But there is no need for time to allow more coverage of the many points which he has explained to your Lordships. I understand that the Bill has found a certain degree of broad consent from the TUC and the CBI, subject to certain caveats. Of course, nobody is perfect, as my noble friend would be the first to say. It is, of course, our task to detect and correct any defects.
The structural origins, as my noble and learned friend made clear, lie in the Conservative Government's Green Paper of 1994 and in the Bill of 1996, which has to
1584
some degree a similar structure to the present Bill. But it must be said that parts of that Bill had the look of a cost-cutting exercise. In my view, my noble and learned friend is to be congratulated on deleting some parts of the Bill which were also rather unfair in terms of the costs that they put upon applicants.
However, it will be necessary when we come to Committee to look very carefully at the proposals for chairman-only hearings or, in one case, chairman plus one wing member instead of the full three. The presidents of the tribunals have highlighted, as key to the system, the tripartite nature of the tribunals. Perhaps I may interpose a comment on the statistics. My noble and learned friend is correct in saying that the number of cases has gone up sharply. But studies of the tribunals suggest that the increase in the number of cases owes as much, if not more, to the increase in the nature of the jurisdictions which have been added—especially, of course, the Wages Act—as well as to social reasons, when certain types of case are likely to emerge from social change, such as redundancy. In that respect, it seems to be more than arguable that the tribunals are dealing with the average unfair dismissal case today with level pricing, a charge for the tribunals' account, as it were, which is slightly less than it used to be 10 or 15 years ago.
The last major research exercise on the tribunals was the work of Professor Linda Dickens at Warwick in 1985. I shall come back to that in a moment. But the Bill is being introduced at a time when the Department of Trade and Industry itself has commissioned research in Manchester, at UMIST, under Professor Goodman on the relationship between the tribunals and in-house procedure clauses on unfair dismissal, the outcome of which could be extremely important to Clause 13. I sent the Minister a note about one or two matters but I am afraid that at the time I was too full of antibiotics to expand on that. If we could have his response on the position of the Manchester research sometime before Committee, it would be more than welcome.
We must remember that, since their creation in 1964, the tribunals have become what the Ministry of Labour then predicted one year later; a nucleus of labour courts for individual protection rights. In parenthesis, perhaps I may say how sad it is that we are the only jurisdiction among comparable countries that does not have a ministry or department of employment or of labour which focuses national attention upon employment and industrial relations as a whole.
The rights of the weaker parties in employment law now depend significantly on the maintenance of the integrity of those tripartite tribunals. In understanding this Bill, one special difficulty—I put this point to my noble and learned friend as a matter to be thought about before Committee—is that the memorandum which accompanied the Conservative Bill in 1996 gave all kinds of illustrations about matters which on the face of the Bill itself are obscure. The best example is the creation of a new kind of judge called "a legal officer" who will decide interlocutory issues. I believe that was first discussed by the Justice report in 1987. I am sure that your Lordships will know that interlocutory issues are frequently crucial in litigation.

1585
Because the Bill tells us nothing about the qualification or nature of those legal officers, although the schedule says that they are to be paid, it is rather difficult to know how to discuss them. Can we discuss them with reference to the 1996 memorandum or not? The text is the same as in the Bill but, for the rest, they are mysterious figures, hidden away, their wellbeing as uncertain as the health of SchrÖdinger's cat.
There is also a special problem in relation to the proposal, which is surely the central and major proposal of the Bill, for alternative dispute resolution of unfair dismissal cases with the assent of both parties by way of arbitration under an ACAS scheme having binding effect. The 1996 memorandum on that contained an annex outline—rather an unsatisfactory outline—of a scheme. But, naturally, the Bill does not hold any such assistance for us. Perhaps we may have a similar scheme from the department before Committee. It would be useful because, first, a number of trade unions and some employers have objections to extending the new procedure of arbitration to discrimination cases.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt him. We are all in a difficulty over this because the scheme will be prepared by ACAS and not by the Department of Trade and Industry. Until ACAS is empowered to prepare the scheme, it is very difficult to predict what scheme it will prepare. Although I fully understand my noble friend's point, we are probably all in the same difficulty here.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Yes, I did not want to make the difficulties even more difficult, but I shall do so. The problem in 1996 was that the scheme appeared to be outlined by the Government with the approval of ACAS, although it was not explicitly said to be the case. I understand that the Government may not wish to do that. I am asking for some informal, non-binding, tripartite document which suggests vaguely, better than the legal officers, some idea of what the scheme would look like. I put it to my noble and learned friend (who knows it very well as he helped to draft the Bill) that the 1996 scheme is based upon a text in the Bill which is not so different from the present one. I simply ask whether we are to look at that as a possibility or are we to be told, "No, that is out; it is something else and we shall tell you when the time comes"? I will be frank with my noble and learned friend: when we come to this matter in Committee, I shall suggest that there should be consultations with the department of state and ACAS at rather different and additional times to those required by the clauses.
It is fashionable and to a great extent true that "legalism" has overcome the tribunals. I do not believe that that has much to do with the introduction of lawyers—I must speak carefully because I am a lawyer. We all know plenty of legalistic barrack-room lawyers who are not lawyers, and we all know many lawyers whose great ability has been to put legalism aside and find a commonsense answer. One only needs to think of Lord Goodman, whose expertise in that direction was incomparable.
1586
To reverse the trend towards undue legalism research suggests that reform in procedure must be matched by reform in substantive law. Unfair dismissal is one area where we may put the lawyers out of the door; we may bring arbitration in; but we shall make little difference if we do not change the substantive law of what is the definition of an "unfair dismissal". The history of the French tribunals—the Conseils de Prud'hommes— suggests the same.
That is why I wonder about those who believe so strongly in the new arbitration scheme. I am not against it. It is rather like sliced bread. It is impossible to be against it in the form in which it stands in the present Bill. Experience of wholly voluntary arbitration which ousts the tribunals altogether (as Professor Dickens suggested in her work) is not a firm guide for a scheme which is, as in the Bill, legally-based arbitration. I mean by that arbitration which is within a structure, within a statute, based not merely upon the consent of the two parties. Legally-based arbitration is subject to the High Court by way of judicial review, if not in other ways. It may be necessary to ensure that the interpretation of the law by arbitrators—especially if it is open only to judicial review—does not diverge to the assumptions or interpretations of the law for those cases which have chosen to go the parallel route.
Although the arbitrator will concentrate upon the facts, nevertheless, no determination by an arbitrator can avoid a finding of the legal base of his or her arbitration award. In other words, we have two legally-based channels for disputes. A certain finesse must now be introduced if we are not to wait until we find that there is a clash between the two channels and depend merely upon judicial review. I do not have an answer. It may be worth spending the summer finding an answer to the possible clashes between the two legally-based ways of solving employment disputes.
Perhaps I may put forward two final points. First, the position of the employee as the weaker party is the constant care of legislation—that must be so—in relation to tribunals. But that makes even more important so-called compromise agreements where employees are allowed to abandon their rights in agreements with other parties. That is quite a new phenomenon; it did not exist before 1993 as compromise agreements. The Bill extends the notion of qualified compromise agreements, largely by removing the restriction on the advice which must be given being advice given by a qualified independent lawyer.
Most people will respond positively to that—they like ejecting lawyers from things. The trouble with the Bill is that it just leaves it at that. So long as the person giving the advice is properly insured under a contract of insurance or an indemnity provided for by members of a professional body (against his or her negligence, obviously) it seems that anyone can now give independent advice. I have made inquiries, and not only would that cover a suitable arrangement with union officials, which I take to be the object of this clause—it is sensible, if there is proper insurance, to have union officials who are very much experts in this subject giving advice—but it would also cover accountants, dentists and osteopaths being able to give independent

1587
advice. The prowess of dentists and osteopaths on points of employment law is not noted, at any rate so far as concerns the books on points of employment law. That is the first important area of compromise agreements.
Secondly, we find that deductions from compensation for unfair dismissal may be made when an employee has failed to make use of an in-house procedure. My noble friend has managed to shorten the clause by saying that a maximum of two weeks' compensation will be involved. But that may occur where an in-house procedure has been provided by the employer and the employee has not made use of it. When we come to Committee, I shall propose that that part of the Bill is unfair to employees. Except for a general jurisdiction of the tribunals, the test of whether it is a proper in-house procedure is merely the choice of the employer. The Bill says "provided by the employer". It should be the case that such in-house procedure agreements on unfair dismissal, if they are to be a ground for diminishing the compensation of an employee, should be negotiated with an independent trade union or there be in place some equivalent manner of testing its propriety.
Because of the special character and importance of my noble friend's Bill, I have dwelt on parts of it. I wished to give some idea of the points we should look at in Committee, but none of those remarks leaves me in any doubt but that your Lordships will wish to give the Bill unanimous approval on this, its Second Reading.
11.48 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the intentions behind the Bill so ably introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. Of course, it is necessary that unfair dismissal claims should be processed more speedily than at present. As we heard, there is already a large backlog of cases waiting to be heard by industrial tribunals and the situation in regard to cases going to appeal is even worse.
There are reasons for that heavy load of cases. We are living through an era of destabilised employment. Unemployment figures may be reducing, but the lack of security for those in employment remains as great as ever. That is not only a product of globalisation and technology, although they play a part. The previous government made a virtue of so-called "flexibility". It may have been right for employers, at least in the short term, but not for employees. Constant downsizing was bound to lead to increases in the number of people who felt that they had been dismissed unfairly.
I do not subscribe to the view that there is now no alternative to the instability that is a feature of many working environments. It is socially unacceptable since it is hardly possible to create the conditions for stable family life without stable employment. Those are issues which the new Government will have to tackle—from a quite different philosophical standpoint, one hopes, than that of their predecessors. The Conservative Party does not yet realise the part that lack of job security played in their downfall; it had begun to affect people who hitherto regarded themselves as being in safe employment and who were largely Conservative supporters.
1588
Pending discussion of these vital issues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is right to urge that something must be done to deal with the cases which have accumulated and to press for alternative procedures. The radical proposal is that unfair dismissal cases should be dealt with by a system of arbitration. As we have heard, industrial tribunals, when first established, were intended to be informal courts where individuals did not need to incur the cost of legal representation. However, as everyone knows—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—the situation has rapidly changed and has become much more legalistic. Although, in my union, we preferred to have members represented by trade union officials who understood the working environment and the union agreements covering their terms and conditions, most employers chose legal representation. Many union officials, including myself, who represented members before industrial tribunals felt that we did very well because we understood the conditions which governed the way in which our members worked and the agreements we had negotiated.
Arbitration may be a better way of dealing with some cases of unfair dismissal. Certainly it should be speedier. The length of time, in most instances, spent awaiting hearings at industrial tribunals makes a mockery of the provisions in legislation for reinstatement. After a gap in time—even longer, of course, if the case goes to appeal—reinstatement simply ceases to be a realistic option even though it is within the powers of the IT and the EAT to award it. I was once a member of the Central Arbitration Committee. We did not consider individual unfair dismissals, but we did deal with a range of other disputes—I think effectively. However, the CAC was ultimately written out of most of the relevant legislation by the previous government who did not really like arbitration and favoured unrestrained employer power.
I understand the TUC believes that the simple arbitration process suggested in the Bill is suitable for straightforward unfair dismissal cases only. However, as we have heard, the Bill makes provision for extending by order the arbitration scheme to include sex, race and disability discrimination. Those can be very complicated matters.
I recently raised on a Question in the House the whole matter of the law relating to sex discrimination cases, particularly as it affects equal pay for work of equal value. There is a case for looking closely at the procedures in conjunction with the Equal Opportunities Commission. The Government have already indicated that they are prepared to do that. Race and disability discrimination may also present problems. I am therefore glad to hear that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer is seized of the difficulties here and is considering introducing his own amendment.
Clause 3 of the Bill appears to extend provision for chairmen to sit alone on cases. I am not too happy about that. The wing members not only bring to the consideration of cases a great deal of experience of industrial relations—that is why they are chosen—but make what I believe is an important contribution to the perceived fairness of the proceedings. I hope that what is proposed will receive careful consideration.

1589
I have some concern about internal appeal procedures. Some internal procedures have been unilaterally imposed by employers. They may not even be known to the employee until the employer seeks to claim that they should have been utilised. Or the employee may mistrust the procedures because he or she was not involved in their original negotiation and may regard the procedures as a piece of window dressing by employers, having no real validity. Employees could have their compensation reduced on the basis of an appeals procedure in which they had no real trust. I would like appeal procedures agreed with an independent trade union. It also seems fair that the employer should have to set out the appeal procedure in writing to the employee when issuing the dismissal notice, advising the employee of the legal consequences of failing to use the procedure. It would simplify matters if a statutory form of words could be used.
While on the matter of compensation, is it not time that we looked at the limits? The current ceiling of £6,300 for the basic award and £11,300 for the compensatory award means that the higher paid, long-serving employee may suffer extensive financial loss. Compensation for pensions alone could reach quite substantial sums. If there has been unfairness in dismissing an employee, the burden of that wrongful act should fall on the employer and not on the employee, particularly when the employee concerned may be in the older age bracket, perhaps with a long history of service, and unable to find alternative employment very quickly.
I agree with what has been said about the extension of compromise agreements. One of the unions has pointed out to me that it has some reservations about how the process works now and that it is very fearful of the emergence of freelance operators who present themselves as experts in this area.
The Bill could profit from amendment. On the other hand, I commend my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for bringing it forward. It is clear that something has to be done to deal with a long waiting list, a situation which is unfair to all concerned. I am glad that we are to have the opportunity to debate the Bill in Committee. We are fortunate that in this House there are many noble Lords who have great expertise. In particular, we shall, I am sure, benefit from the advice of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, who is pre-eminent in this area. I welcome the Bill and look forward to having the opportunity to discuss it further in Committee.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. I am a member of an industrial tribunal. I am also a member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed was first introduced in 1971. The tribunals were seen to be the method whereby employees who felt they had been unfairly treated could get swift, informal and effective determination of their complaints. The primary remedy that we saw—I say "we" because as a trade union official I represented members before industrial tribunals—was the power of the tribunal to order the
1590
reinstatement of a worker who had been unfairly dismissed. As has been said, the reality today is very different. Informality has gone and there is a widespread use of lawyers. My experience is that employers still use lawyers when, frankly, the personnel director could do just as well. There is constant reference to case law made by superior courts—the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice.
The main problem today is delay with regard to the length of time that can elapse between the registration of a complaint of unfair dismissal and its determination. Months can go by before a case comes before a tribunal. If the losing party decides to appeal, much more time elapses. Therefore, reinstatement is no longer an effective remedy. That is why it is used only in 1 per cent. of the cases that come before industrial tribunals.
Reinstatement or re-engagement—they have the same value—is an effective remedy only if it is awarded four to six weeks after the employee has been unfairly dismissed. It has to be done when the employment relationship is still warm. If it has gone cold and time has elapsed, it is no longer an effective remedy.
We are all familiar with the reasons for the delay. The workload has increased and it is still increasing. It is due to the widened jurisdiction. We now deal with sex, race and disability discrimination cases. Also there is the growing number of small businesses which seem to be unaware of employee rights and the need to have internal discipline and grievance procedures. I am bound to say that there is the unwillingness of governments adequately to provide the necessary resources to meet the growing caseload. Therefore, I welcome the Bill introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer because it seeks to reduce the caseload.
I also welcome it because it could be the first step to reducing what I regard as the quite unfair and unjust requirement that a worker must have two years' employment before he can exercise his employment rights. We once had a commitment to those rights being established at day one. That is perhaps impractical, but we really ought to move to where we started, which was, after six months' employment, rights then become effective. I hope that the Front Bench will take note of that point.
As I said, I welcome the Bill, but there are a number of concerns, some of which have already been expressed. I welcome the proposal that ACAS should provide voluntary, binding arbitration to the parties to an unfair dismissal dispute as an alternative to going to an industrial tribunal. But I question—even with my noble friend's amendment which we shall see at Committee stage—whether at this stage or ever racial, sexual and disability discrimination cases are suitable for ACAS arbitration. I am not sure.
As I indicated, the remedies that are open to industrial tribunals are reinstatement, re-engagement and compensation. Reinstatement is going back to where you were the day before you were unfairly dismissed. Re-engagement has the same value as that award. I have had the experience where one has decided that there has

1591
been unfair dismissal, but to say to the employer that he must take the employee back in the position he was in was impractical. So the alternative is re-engagement, which, as I say, may be with an associated company or in a different place of work. But it has the same value as reinstatement.
However, in the Bill we have what seems to be a third remedy—or perhaps a fourth remedy—"or otherwise re-employed". If that is designed to give the arbitrator flexibility when making his award, I submit that re-engagement should suffice. It is dangerous to move away from the well understood remedies which are provided by the Employment Rights Act. I believe that those words should be taken out of the Bill. But we shall come to that at Committee stage. It is dangerous to drift away. The fear is that there will be an alternative remedy which could act to the detriment of the employee who has been unfairly dismissed.
My third concern relates to Part III, Clause 13 of the Bill. It is what I call the "fines and bonuses" clause. We have heard of it already in this debate. It gives the tribunals the power to penalise employees who have been unfairly dismissed by reducing the compensation by not more than two weeks' pay if they have not used the employer's procedure for appealing against unfair dismissal. That is the fine. Similarly, if the employer has prevented the employee from using his procedure, the tribunal can make a supplementary award to the employee of up to two weeks' pay. That is the bonus.
In my opinion this is a minefield. It will be most unwelcome to industrial tribunals. It will prove to be a nightmare for them. For example, what is "procedure"? All the evidence will need to be assembled to argue the case whether they went through the procedure or whether the employer prevented the employee from going through the procedure. There is already enough evidence that has to be amassed to deal with the argument about mitigating the loss where a compensation award is being made to an employee who has been unfairly dismissed. To extend that to an argument about whether he was prevented from using an internal procedure—all for two weeks' pay—is not worth the candle.
I believe that that provision should come out of the Bill. It does not address the problem. Many cases of unfair dismissal come before industrial tribunals because employers have no internal appeals procedure. This clause is silent on that. It relates only to circumstances where, allegedly, there is in place an appeal procedure. What is the penalty for employers where there is none? What is needed is encouragement for (or even a requirement that) all employers to have an internal appeal procedure which conforms to an ACAS code of practice. That needs to be looked at again.
My final concern is Clause 3 in Part I of the Bill which extends the categories of cases where the chairman should sit alone—that is to say, without the two lay members. In my experience chairmen welcome and benefit from the presence and participation of, as they are sometimes called, "the industrial members". Disputes over redundancy payments and the transfer of
1592
undertakings regulations should be heard by a full tribunal. These are issues which are best settled with the industrial members present because their knowledge and experience are vital. Chairmen should not be under pressure, as they are now, to sit alone in order to improve the throughput figures of tribunals.
I repeat my welcome for the Bill. I hope that before Committee stage discussions can take place on some of the issues that have been raised to make a good Bill even better.
12.7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I also welcome this Bill on three counts. First, it is a good and commonsensical Bill. It tries to improve the speedy, effective disposal of disputes and, if it works, it will save public money. That makes a significant contrast to the Bills on industrial and labour relations that we have had over many previous years. That is my second reason. I hope that it marks the end of the dismal parade of anti-worker Bills, which I always called "The eight brides of Frankenstein", the best parts of which were for the most part dictated by European directives which the government did not want to introduce.
The third reason why I welcome the Bill is that for the first time since I have been a Member of this House I have a chance to declare an interest. I have always wanted to declare an interest. I cannot say that I am a lawyer, but I am an arbitrator and therefore I have an interest. If I say hard or difficult things about arbitrators, that comes from experience.
I have a number of questions which I shall fire at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I do not expect them to answer them all today. But I hope that they will think about them and that they might get in touch with some of us about them. I hope that they will tell us whether they find the questions acceptable in general terms in order to give us some idea of the sort of amendments that we might profitably move in Committee.
My first query is to indicate surprise that there is nothing in the Bill about the procedure for encouraging exemptions. The procedure goes back to the 1978 Bill. It is still there and yet, as we all know, only in one case involving the Joint Industry Board for the electrical contracting industry does the exemption procedure operate. I do not know why the Government do not put in the Bill or say in this House that they support the notion of the exemption procedure. It may be it is to be improved in various ways. But in a way it is a matter of common agreement between all sides of the House, because in the previous government's green paper, which has been frequently quoted, on page 25 they talked about the possibility of encouraging exemptions. They stated:
"Another possibility is whether any change should be made to the arrangements (in Section 65 of the 1978 Act) under which dismissals procedures may by agreement be 'opted out' of the statutory provisions on unfair dismissal. Exemption from the unfair dismissals legislation currently requires the making of a designation order by the Secretary of State; and is subject to several safeguards".
The safeguards are then listed. Paragraph 4.29 then states—and this is absolutely true—that the performance standards (in the exempted procedures),

1593
"represent considerable advantages, both for employers and employees, compared with the industrial tribunals".
That is what the previous Conservative Government said. The quotation continues
"the Government suggests that the voluntary exemption procedure should be considered more widely by employers and trade unions. The Government has always taken the view that industrial disputes are best resolved by the parties concerned, without the intervention of the state. The evident success of the JIB voluntary procedure sets an example which, if adopted more widely, might produce considerable benefits".
That is unanswerable. I have operated within the context of the JIB voluntary procedure. It is standard form, if necessary, to award reinstatement and re-employment because there is speed and efficiency and because the people who operate that procedure know it very well.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, has my noble friend considered Clause 12 which, unless I have misunderstood the position, takes some of the points that he is making?
Lord McCarthy: Yes, my Lords, it does take some of those points and if we had more time—we may consider this in Committee—I could list the ways in which I regard the exemption procedure as superior to Clause 12. It is much more professional and allows for the problems to be tackled in a much more specified and detailed way. It can result in the establishment of standing tribunals. It does not deal with only one case if one employee wants to use it; it is an overall agreement. That is why I regard it as an advance on anything in the present Bill.
I should like the Government to tell me—today if they can but, if not, subsequently—their attitude towards attempting to encourage the exemption procedure. We are talking about caseload. The Government are bothered about the caseload and it has been estimated that between 30 and 35 per cent. of the caseload comes from the public sector. If, as a result of government encouragement, employers in the public sector were to offer exemption procedures to the unions in the public sector, we might be able at a stroke to remove 35 per cent. of the caseload. We cannot do that with Clause 12.
I come to my second question which relates to inducements for workers to contract out under the present Bill. What are the inducements for workers? We all know about the inducements for employers. They do not have to appear at the tribunal. If the case goes against the employer, that will not become public and will not appear in the local newspapers. So, what are the inducements for workers to enter the new system proposed in the Bill? We can imagine what they might think, so I am asking the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, whether it might be possible in Committee to introduce some specific inducements into the legislation. Could we say that if you enter an arbitration procedure—could it not be part of the eventual ACAS procedure? —the matter is resolved within a specified time? Why could we not have time limits? Could we say that re-employment and reinstatement might be built into the procedure? Could we say that the provisions will apply to those who have been employed for less than two years? We could say
1594
lots of things to induce workers to move into the procedure, because if we do not, they will not do so. Unless we can convince workers that the new system will be better and quicker, the only workers who will move into the new procedure will be those who are put under pressure to do so by their employers.
That brings me to my next question. How are we going to ensure that pressure is not put on people to move into the new procedure? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has already discussed this so I shall not do so at length. If I understood him correctly, he said that he would like to do something on that point but is worried about whether we can say that someone must have advice. What qualified advice could someone have? Could they have a lawyer or could they demand the right to go to a free, law advice centre? If they can, I should like the Government to say today that they recognise that there is a problem and that workers could be suborned or pressurised to enter this procedure which is to the very obvious advantage of employers. I hope that in Committee the Government will be able to put something on the face of the Bill to help to defend workers against the pressure that they might be placed under. That is my third point.
I come now to my fourth question. If we are moving into arbitration—I should declare a double interest here—who will the arbitrators be? Will they be those from the ACAS list? Here I must declare a non-interest because I do not want these arbitrators to be from the ACAS list because we are not lawyers. I believe that the arbitrators must be experienced arbitrators and that they must have some legal competence. They must know what the law is. Indeed, I would not mind if they were legally qualified arbitrators as long as they were also experienced. I can think of many lawyers with industrial experience who operate within the system. I should like the arbitrators to have certain qualifications. There is nothing unusual about that with regard to the unfair dismissal procedure; for example, outside arbitration—that is, in industrial tribunals—people have to have special qualifications to be able to serve on tribunals dealing with race and sex discrimination cases. We can pick and choose the arbitrators that we have. Do the Government agree that that is right?
My fifth question is more complicated. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was also concerned on this point. The great advantage of arbitration—its abiding glory—is that it is essentially hugger-mugger. No one knows what you did or why you did it for the most part and you do not even have to give your reasons. It is quiet, confidential and private. If we are successful in moving from legal regulation to arbitration, do we want virtually all unfair dismissal cases to be dealt with hugger-mugger? That would mean that there would never be any principles and that we would never find out why the arbitrators did what they did. That is what happens in arbitration. Even more dangerously, do we want that to happen with race, sex or disability cases? What about those cases involving future European Union directives on workers' rights? They would normally go to industrial tribunals, but are they all to go now to arbitration? If so, that would mean that we would never know about them.

1595
In the past we have had a whole series of cases where the decisions of tribunals, of the EAT or occasionally even the ECJ, have been given maximum publicity—and that has been a very good thing. I shall not list them, but there has been a whole range of cases in which lawyers have said things which all other lawyers said that they would not say. There have been enormous and significant advances in workers' rights relating to, for example, sex discrimination in the Marshall cases. I would not want such decisions in future to be hugger-mugger. I want them to be proclaimed because we are creating new standards. How far do we want to go in shifting, in the interests of expediency, swiftness, reinstatement and re-employment, from a public system where everybody knows what has happened to a new basis of jurisdiction which is hugger-mugger? I should like the Government to try to answer me on that point.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, we might have judicial review.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord may say that, but, with respect, it is not as effective and it takes a lot longer.
Finally, I should like to ask about the cheapness of the new scheme. I have looked at the previous government's Green Paper and I can see only one reliable figure, but, as I shall show, it is not reliable at all. Page 16 of the Green Paper states that the cost per case of industrial tribunals is £966 and that the cost per case of an ACAS cleared dispute is £263, which means that the latter is about four times as cheap. It will not do, because ACAS does not provide arbitration in most of these cases. What ACAS says is four times as cheap as conciliation. Of course conciliation is cheaper, but we are talking here about a new system. I hope that under the new system which will provide the worker with the right to obtain some advice there will be a legal chairman. If you have a legal chairman you must pay more money. I hope to provide incentives and inducements to workers to enter this system. We have absolutely no experience of what it will cost to operate an arbitration system for unfair dismissal or anything else. Those figures do not stand up. Perhaps the Government can try to provide more up-to-date figures in order that we can compare the relative cheapness of the two systems.
I support the Bill, but I want to see it improved. We do not want to see figures that demonstrate that we do not want the Bill at all because arbitration turns out to be more expensive. I do not think that it need be. We need to be more realistic. With those qualifications, I commend the Bill to the House.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Phillimore: My Lords, as a practising barrister I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the Bill. I therefore also declare an interest. I welcome the proposed change of name from industrial tribunals to employment tribunals, since that is clearly more consonant with the work done by them. Clause 2 appears to propose a substantive change, providing for the determination of disputes without an oral hearing.
1596
I have reservations as to whether in practice that will streamline cases. Furthermore, I do not consider it an appropriate form of hearing in cases where facts are often in dispute and the evaluation of witnesses is necessary and important, as in unfair dismissal and discrimination cases. It may be more appropriate for determining jurisdiction and preliminary points. However, even those are often better resolved with some oral evidence.
Where the person against whom proceedings are brought does nothing to contest the proceedings, the proposal seems to lead to a decision on the merits. The requisite material for such a decision is unlikely to be contained in the originating application. That would be the only material before the tribunal. However, I welcome a procedure that is akin to judgment in default of a notice of appearance, provided that the time limit for filing a notice of appearance is extended from 14 to 28 days. I suggest that that is particularly necessary in complex discrimination cases where complaints may go back over a number of years and involve several different managers.
In relation to preliminary hearings I respectfully suggest that the Bill may provide an opportunity to clarify paragraph 6 of the first schedule to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 and what is meant by,
"entitlement of any party to bring or contest the proceedings to which the originating application relates".
A further point in relation to preliminary hearings arises from the proposal in Clause 5 to use a legal officer to deal with such matters. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about the proposal. It is a vital part of efficient case management that a preliminary hearing be dealt with by a legally qualified chairman with or without lay members. As for the proposal in Clause 3 to extend the categories in which a chairman sits alone, I suggest that cases under Section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996—which concerns references as to what should be included in the written statement of terms of employment to be provided by the employer at the request of the employee—should be excluded since often they involve complex questions of construction of agreements and the determination of factual issues where the assistance of lay members would be particularly helpful.
As for the arbitration proposals, I suggest the following: that the parties and arbitrators agree the terms of reference; that arbitrators decline jurisdiction in cases of substantial factual and/or legal dispute; that arbitrators should have power to remit a case to an industrial or new employment tribunal at any time; that there be no right of appeal but a right to complain about failure to comply with the outcome of the arbitration to an industrial/new employment tribunal; and that the administrating of oaths or affirmations should be permitted at the discretion of the arbitrator in each case.
I am concerned about the proposal in Clause 9 that "independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer" should be replaced by "independent advice" since this appears to remove the need for such person to have any qualifications at all. I suggest that that would be highly undesirable. I therefore share the concerns of other

1597
noble Lords. I am worried too by Clause 13 and the proposed reduction in compensation for failure to use internal procedures. The reasons for that concern were eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. Subject to those comments, I commend the Bill.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on bringing forward this very important Bill. From these Benches I give it a cautious welcome. I have never ventured into the field of employment law without making a deep study of the collected works of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I do not profess to have his expertise but, just as the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Phillimore, have declared interests, I have appeared for applicants and respondent local authorities and statutory bodies before industrial tribunals and employment appeal tribunals. Wearing another hat as chairman of a radio broadcasting company, I have summarily dismissed executive directors and found myself defending those decisions as a witness in industrial tribunal proceedings.
When I see the word "streamline" in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill my suspicions are aroused. The danger that always attends the reform of forensic procedures is that it may be inspired by a desire to make things easier for the tribunal to get through its workload. That was put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, who said that it might be designed to improve the throughput figures. He also welcomed the Bill on the basis that it would reduce his workload, so he looked at it from both points of view. Reform must always be approached from the point of view of the user of the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, rightly emphasised, in these types of proceedings the applicant is always in a weaker position.
The question to be addressed is whether the proposals make matters speedier and easier for the applicant to obtain justice. With that in mind, I consider that these proposals can be improved, as many noble Lords have said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, himself commented that he was not wedded to every jot and tittle. That conjured up a rather interesting picture of this Bill.
Clause 2 proposes to introduce amendments to permit regulations to be passed so that a tribunal can determine cases without a hearing, or a full hearing. The first example of that is that the tribunal can act without a hearing on written evidence alone where both parties have given their consent. As a practitioner, it is hard for me to envisage where such a procedure would be appropriate if there was any dispute either as to fact or to law, possibly with calculations of compensation.
But one wonders what else the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has in mind in putting forward that example. Contrary to the view that he expressed, the Employment Lawyers Association is concerned that consent to such a procedure should be informed consent so that an applicant does not waive his right to a full public hearing without being fully aware of the consequences of so doing. I would argue that consent
1598
must be conditional on the party concerned obtaining independent legal advice. I do not understand why in new subsection (3A) in Section 7 of the Employment Tribunals Act there should be a provision that the consent, once given, could not at any subsequent stage be withdrawn and a full hearing sought. I can envisage circumstances which might well arise where consent to a decision without a hearing having been given at one stage, that consent should be withdrawn.
There is also a provision in new subsection (3B)(b)for no hearing where it appears that the applicant is not entitled to the relief that he is claiming. Whether or not the applicant is entitled to the relief that he is claiming may well be the subject of considerable argument in a complex case. It may be the very issue. It is not enough for the tribunal to decide that the applicant is not entitled to the relief that he is claiming. The noble and learned Lord should narrow that provision to the first part of the subsection as drafted, as indeed he indicated when he introduced this provision. The drafting may need to be looked at.
The third matter to which I would refer where there is no hearing is where a superior court has decided to the contrary. If the tribunal were to dismiss a case because there was a decision, for example, of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which seemed to be against the applicant, that would deny the new applicant the opportunity ever to challenge the decision of the superior court. Normally, the applicant would go through the first stage, accept that he was bound by the decision of the superior court, ask for findings of fact and then take the matter forward in an attempt to challenge the issue at the highest possible court. Summary dismissal of his claim without a hearing in which such factual findings are not made might well be a cause of injustice.
In Clause 5 there is a reference to the appointment of legal officers—mysterious figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, described them. They have powers under Clause 5 to carry out anything and everything that a chairman is allowed to do. That is where I suspect that the motivation is to relieve the pressure on the chairmen of industrial tribunals and to take things away from them rather than looking at it from the applicant's point of view. It introduces the concept of the interlocutory judge—the master or district judge, with whom we are so familiar in ordinary civil proceedings. Once we do that we necessarily have to introduce a body of rules and appeals. That involves delay and expense for the applicant and for the respondents—that delay was so rightly deplored by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. With my experience of civil proceedings, it would give rise to the possibility of tactics on one side or another; delays on one side or another; putting pressure upon applicants; and unless the provision is much more clearly explained I would oppose the concept of the legal officer.
The nature of the appointment does not suggest a level of remuneration which would attract the most experienced and mature judicial minds to that task. A better approach to the problem of dealing with such matters might be case management, as set out in the Woolf Report—case management controlled by the chairman of the industrial tribunal. That is what he is

1599
paid for. The Government should not try to save money by not appointing enough industrial tribunal chairmen or by the appointment of a much more lowly "mysterious" judicial figure.
I come to Clause 7. The concept of an arbitration scheme is, on the face of it, attractive, but we do not know what is in the mind of the noble and learned Lord in putting that forward. The arbitrator is a decision maker, acting, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out, within a framework of legality. He has to apply the law as he understands it. He has to act within the legal procedures. His decision is subject to judicial review.
If competing cases are to be presented for a decision by a decision maker, it is far better that it be done in public; that there be orderly presentation of well prepared cases, conducted by qualified and experienced advocates, whether they be lawyers or experienced trade union officials. It should be done professionally. A row behind closed doors is not an effective substitute for a public hearing. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out, secrecy is usually in the interest of the employer, who may well be happy to have the proceedings behind closed doors.
Of course the negotiated settlement of an unfair dismissal case under the auspices of ACAS and with the assistance of a skilled conciliation officer is an entirely different matter. There is existing legislation to make provision for just that. It is helpful for parties to come together with a skilled conciliator, and for them to have face-to-face discussions. That is different from going to an arbitrator who is being called upon to make a decision that is binding upon the parties.
I should like to be assured that the motivation behind the whole proposal for arbitration is not just to reduce the workload of the industrial tribunal or to avoid the appointment of additional tribunal members. It would be undesirable were an applicant to be persuaded to take his case into a private room, with an arbitrator appointed for the day, merely on the promise that his case would be heard more cheaply and more quickly. Justice: the arrival at a fair and correct decision in the particular case is much more important than speed and low cost. One of the most difficult positions for a legal practitioner to be in is to have a client who feels that the judge has interrupted him, has cut him short, that his evidence has been rushed, that his submissions have not been heard, and he has lost without having had his full and fair day in court. Speed and low cost are not necessarily the concomitants of justice.
The proposal in Clause 8 is to extend arbitration proceedings beyond unfair dismissal cases. Many noble Lords have expressed the TUC's view that it would be undesirable for such arbitration to take place in sex, race and disability discrimination cases because they raise complex questions of law. If there is to be arbitration along the lines in the Bill, I take issue with the TUC which has suggested that the use of lawyers in arbitration proceedings should be discouraged as far as possible. Some noble Lords have echoed those sentiments today.
1600
It is fashionable to denigrate lawyers and their fees. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I do not speak carefully on this issue. Lawyers are not part of the entertainment industry. Their words float away in the air. They do not leave behind them any great artistic legacy, any body of literature, or any monument or building. Sometimes I wish that I had built the bridge on the M.6 along which I shall pass tonight as I drive to Scotland. If its design were the sole achievement of my life, I would be a happy man. Lawyers leave little behind. However, there is no comparable body of equal expertise and integrity charged with the responsibility of assisting people in trouble and of asserting their rights. If lawyers are no more than mechanics who keep the wheels of the various court and tribunal procedures turning, their skills have a vital effect on people's lives.
I was gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, refer to the great advances—surprising as they appear to be to him—that lawyers have made in the employment field. For that reason, I entirely oppose the proposals set out in Clause 9 which would entitle anyone, qualified or not, who could acquire an insurance policy to set himself up as an independent adviser for the purpose of advising on compromise agreements. Considerable disquiet is already felt in the legal profession about the burgeoning ambulance chasing of so-called loss adjusters who advertise their services to injured persons to pursue and negotiate the settlement of their personal injury claims with insurance companies. In my view, these proposals would create a similar class of people who, since their whole raison d'être would be to broker deals between applicants and respondents, would undoubtedly lack the independence of solicitors or counsel, whose practices do not depend upon a narrow area of work.
Your Lordships should not be moved by stories of fat cat lawyers—a phrase regrettably used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—into creating a sub-profession of alley cats; people who do not have the necessary qualifications to give proper advice. If any amendments are to be made to this provision, the advisers who give advice to applicants should be specified either as lawyers or recognised trade union or professional representatives.
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, spelling out two particular problems which he believes should be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has already underlined the point that the present procedures for dealing with equal pay claims for different work of equal value are tortuous and unworkable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has practical experience of such problems and I have no doubt that he will take the opportunity to bring forward suitable amendments, provided that they are within the Long Title of the Bill.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has pointed to the clogging up of lists by the applications in which the same point of principle arises. It may be that many of the 88,000 rising to 109,000 cases are caused by a system which demands that individuals file individual applications in particular, for example, in sex discrimination in pay cases. It ought to be possible to

1601
bring representative proceedings or the equivalent of class actions. Where, for example, there has been a ruling in the European Court on a material issue, a representative action would assist in clarifying its effect on UK law. This is an ideal opportunity to make a necessary procedural reform which ought greatly to relieve the pressure on the tribunals by reducing the mirror, repetitive cases into one representative case.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, will take on board the comments that I have made. We on these Benches will endeavour to work with him on the practicality of my suggestions and we will endeavour to co-operate to the best of our ability to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool is no longer in his place, on behalf of these Benches I wish to second the good wishes expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I do so with great pleasure.
I, too, congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on bringing the Bill forward. We welcome it with more than the cautious welcome it has received from certain other noble Lords. The Bill would have made my life a good deal easier in the years when much of my time was spent in industrial relations, a great deal of it sitting and waiting around in bleak rooms at ACAS, even if not normally for unfair dismissal cases.
I am sorry that much of today's debate has been spent most professionally by noble Lords experienced in the trades union movement. I should have liked to have heard Members of my own Benches—perhaps it is my fault that they are not here—expressing their views from their experience in management. Furthermore, I should have liked to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, speaking from his great experience of the Newspaper Publishers Association.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, can regard himself as the godfather of the Bill. It has a distinguished parentage and its gestation period comfortably exceeds that of an elephant. The Green Paper which was its progenitor was published in 1994 and in November 1995 my right honourable friend the then President of the Board of the Trade announced the Conservative Government's intention to implement the proposals. The draft Bill was published a year ago last week. It seems to have undergone a few changes during that two-and-a-half years and I have no doubt that we shall look for some refinement before it leaves this House with our blessing.
There is undoubtedly a need for it or for something similar. It cannot be right that with between 20,000 to 25,000 cases a year going to arbitration, 50 per cent. took more than 26 weeks to be heard, even though that figure has been reduced. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that justice and speed are not incompatible. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, spoke of a possible inducement for employees. Undoubtedly, speed is such an inducement. An employee who has
1602
been dismissed needs to obtain new employment fast and will find it difficult to do so with the problems of his previous employment and the end thereof hanging over him. The issue of re-engagement or reinstatement, whatever one calls it, must remain in the Bill, but none of us has any doubt that it is not a practical solution in other than a small proportion of cases.
The enactment of the Bill must lead to shorter waiting times. Those who are responsible for the Bill are to be congratulated on that. I hope that tribunals will be tough in setting realistic deadlines. I suspect that there is never a real delay in getting to ACAS and if the case can be settled there, there is less cause for complaint. It is the log jam of cases waiting for the arbitration that causes the delay.
A change that has come about since the days of the White Paper—a change which I believe is to be regretted—is the dropping of the proposal that employees shall be barred from tribunals unless they can show that they have already tried to settle their dispute with their employers. Such a clause would have prevented too precipitate a charge in the arbitration maelstrom and reduced the necessary consideration of many hopeless cases.
When the Green Paper was published, the local government management board expressed concern that the changes which allowed the chairman of the tribunal to sit alone in the majority of cases would undermine the belief that tribunals were impartial and effective. Almost all noble Lords who have spoken have touched on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who is no longer in her place, made some very good points about the support which the "sidesman" would give to a chairman. But I do not believe that there is any justification for the argument that a chairman sitting alone would undermine the belief that the tribunals were impartial and effective. I do not believe that I am being too cynical in saying that that change to one man sitting alone—and I talk about men in the sense of members of the human race—will serve only to save time. In my experience, the two lay members—one an employer's nominee and one a trade union nominee—tend to cancel each other out and in any event, the settlement reached is based largely on the opinion of the professional chairman. There must be concern if the chairman is relatively inexperienced, but that would not seem to be a serious danger.
Some thought should be given to the question of whether widening the qualifications necessary for a chairman is contradictory to the requirement that he carry insurance. Somebody who is not a professional would find it difficult to obtain the necessary insurance. But I do not believe that would be a problem, although that matter must be considered in Committee.
The change to allow ACAS to prepare a scheme for arbitration in unfair dismissal cases is particularly to be applauded. In industrial disputes, my experience is that the ACAS conciliation officer seems generally to act in the capacity of a eunuch: he can offer professional advice but is unable to get the job done himself. Under the Bill he will be able either to recommend a settlement

1603
which the parties may accept without going to arbitration or failing that, will prepare and polish the case which is to be presented to the arbitrator.
It is foolish to think that cases which either employees or managements bring to the tribunal are put together with the same care and professionalism as speeches in your Lordships' House. Whether the case is to be presented in writing (and adjudicated upon), as it will now be able to be, or be taken to a tribunal by the appellant in person, the work of the ACAS conciliator must greatly shorten the time it all takes. Having prepared a scheme under Clause 7, it should be possible for ACAS to proceed smoothly. At a later stage it will be possible for the scheme to be extended to other classes of disputes. That would be extremely helpful for the process of industrial negotiations, even though the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, questioned that. But it would seem to be a satisfactory fallback.
Clause 13 is particularly welcome. This will penalise either party for not taking advantage of the internal or external procedures open to it. By failing to use any procedure set up for appeals against dismissal, an employee's compensatory award may be reduced; and if the employer prevents in any way the proper use of such procedure, the payment may be increased. The Bill contains a worrying amount of common sense.
I should like to comment on Clause 1 in that context whereby the name is changed from industrial tribunals to employment tribunals. It is ironic that that comes at a time when the charge of the Bill moves from the Department for Education and Employment to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I accept that.
I note that when the Green Paper was published in 1994, there was a suggestion in the Guardian that employees and unions might be disadvantaged by the Bill (which was then unpublished). In a letter to the paper, Mr. John Monks, the General Secretary of the TUC, expressed himself content and was in particular unworried about the lack of a right of appeal from the judgment of a tribunal. He is probably correct in this because as he says that even if there is no right of appeal, either party could seek judicial review if it was felt the arbitrator had taken a decision which was legally wrong.
I am interested that Mr. Monks at that time confirmed that it is rare in unfair dismissal cases for new precedents to be set. As he says, the vast majority of claims are uncomplicated and routine. Arbitrators have heard it all before. I am sure all those who have been involved would accept that. So much is this so that it might in the future be possible to settle all claims by computer! However, I hope not.
I have expressed some form of a eulogy for the Bill which, as I say, we very much welcome. There are changes which are desirable and which will be discussed in Committee. One point that I should like to raise, which has not been raised by other noble Lords although the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, took the matter from another angle—that is, using the procedure for small firms with a very small number of employees. Many
1604
firms have fewer than 10 employees, and many companies with employment problems are newly set up and, at the time of conflict, still relatively disorganised. It may well not be appropriate for those companies to enter the full panoply of the provisions of the Bill. Although I consider this to be an excellent procedure, I question whether it is appropriate for all organisations or whether there should be an easier, very simple procedure for small companies. In almost every case, they should be able to find a method of settling the dispute by a simple heart-to-heart with an adviser who is sympathetic to both parties.
I therefore ask the Minister to look at the Bill to see whether in Committee there is any way of making the procedure even simpler for the simple employer and the simple, if aggrieved, employee. We shall do the same. Employees in such businesses are unlikely to have the protection offered by the trade unions where larger numbers are employed and such employers may well not have a trade organisation at their back. It is still necessary for justice to be done and to be seen to be done but in these cases it is as important that the procedure should be simple and easy.
That seems to be the only major problem, but is an important one and should be addressed if the Bill is to achieve its aim of quick, easy and universal justice. Having said that, I would give it the full blessing from these Benches and wish it well on its way.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, first I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell on bringing forward this Bill. It relates to a subject in which he has considerable expertise and knowledge, as he has demonstrated to us by his remarks this morning. Other noble Lords have spoken and they too have given us the benefit of their experience and knowledge. I thank those noble Lords who had the courtesy of informing me of their concerns beforehand. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his welcome for the Bill.
The previous government started work on the Bill, as we have been told. It was the subject of two consultation procedures and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer told us, it has received support from a wide variety of sources, including employers organisations and the trade unions. We welcome this and look forward to further examples of social partners working together with government and producing practical and workable solutions.
We support the Bill. The Government welcome the initiative of my noble and learned friend in bringing the Bill forward. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline our reaction to the Bill, to welcome the changes made to it since it was published last year, and to say how the measures contained in it are to be taken forward. I shall try to answer some of the questions put to the Government. I know that my noble and learned friend will respond to the points made to him. However, as regards those points which fall in between, I am sure that we will deal with them by letter.

1605
This is a Bill about the resolution of disputes and it aims to improve relations in the workplace. Where there are disputes, it is in the interests of all concerned that they should be resolved speedily. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that justice delayed is justice denied. The Bill will achieve the speed-up of justice in a number of ways. It will streamline certain tribunal procedures; for example, by allowing chairmen to determine certain issues without the need for a full hearing. It will also promote alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, and encourage the use of internal appeals procedures.
Some noble Lords expressed concern about the effect of those changes on the users—that is, on the employees in particular. The changes will bring benefits to those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being involved in a dispute: this will benefit both employers, especially small firms, and employees alike—the users of the system.
Central to dispute resolution is the role of ACAS. I should like to pay tribute to ACAS and the work that it carries out both in collective disputes and the less high profile, but equally important, role of attempting to settle individual employment rights disputes through conciliation. ACAS has an admirable track record in the area. Indeed, for employers and employees alike, the intervention of ACAS is often a welcome means of trying to resolve their differences. My noble and learned friend's Bill will give ACAS new responsibilities in this regard, both in terms of providing an arbitration scheme for unfair dismissal disputes and extending the conciliation officer's duties to include redundancy payments cases; for example, where employers have not paid their former employees what they are statutorily entitled to receive.
Certainly the proposal that ACAS should provide an arbitration scheme is a new development in the area of dispute resolution. Yet this will be another positive step towards helping people solve their disputes. The Bill does not contain the detail of the scheme. Instead, it outlines the general framework under which the scheme will operate. This will allow ACAS the flexibility to design a scheme which will be voluntary, informal, non-legalistic, private and binding on the parties. We look forward to receiving ACAS's proposals in due course.
My noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Wedderburn expressed concern on the matter; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, made some suggestions about the ACAS scheme. I am sure that those points will be taken on board. It occurred to me during today's debate that it might be helpful if the Government were to ask ACAS whether it could produce a memorandum illustrating what such a scheme might look like. I believe that that might help noble Lords in Committee.
Other noble Lords have asked who the arbitrators will be. ACAS will appoint arbitrators to the scheme, but they will not be ACAS employees or officers. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other speakers wanted the results of the arbitration to be public because such decisions may have an important effect on the rights of employees. I would say that arbitration is probably not
1606
suitable for such important cases. Those cases will go to industrial tribunals which are held in public and, therefore, the public will be aware of tribunal decisions.
The ACAS scheme will cover unfair dismissal disputes. My noble and learned friend has already pointed out that the Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to enable ACAS to prepare arbitration schemes in other jurisdictions. Noble Lords expressed concern about that provision. I should like to assure the House that the Government have no plans at present for additional schemes to be introduced.
The introduction of an arbitration scheme for unfair dismissal disputes is, as I have said, a new development. We have an open mind about it. If it is successful, that will be because parties involved in disputes have found it to be a useful means of resolving their disputes. If it is successful, we may take views as to whether arbitration might be a suitable method of resolving disputes in other areas.
My noble friends Lord Gladwin and Lady Turner expressed their concern about extending the area of arbitration. I should point out to them that, if we are to contemplate arbitration being available for other jurisdictions, we would ensure that the relevant representative organisations, such as employers and trade unions, were consulted. And, where appropriate—for example, if it were contemplated that arbitration might be suitable for disputes involving discrimination—we would consult the EOC, CRE and other bodies. My noble and learned friend has also signalled that he wishes to make an amendment to ensure that any orders made by the Secretary of State to approve new jurisdictions will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I can confirm that the Government will support such an amendment. I hope that that will reassure those noble Lords who were worried about that aspect of the matter.
The ACAS scheme will, of course, be an alternative to an industrial tribunal hearing, but it is not a replacement for the tribunals. The Government are fully committed to the important role that the industrial tribunals play in the industrial relations field. I should like to put on record our high regard for the work of such tribunals and, in particular, for the lay members, who often hold down full-time jobs. Indeed, the tribunals benefit from their experience.
There are proposals in this Bill to extend the circumstances in which a chairman will sit alone without lay members on certain technical cases. My noble friends Lord Gladwin and Lord Wedderburn and the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, were worried about chairmen sitting alone. I should stress that this is not a step towards doing away with lay members altogether. The Government are committed to the use of lay members. Their practical experience of relations in the workplace is very valuable in the majority of tribunal cases. The proposals in the Bill will extend "sit alone" for full hearings to a number of more straightforward technical types of case in which the input of lay members may be less valuable. Other hearings will continue to be conducted by a three-person tribunal.

1607
Even in the sit-alone cases, the chairman will have the discretion to call for a tribunal of three if that is believed to be desirable.
The administrative support to the tribunals is provided by civil servants. They created a next steps agency—the Employment Tribunals Service—in April 1997. Despite substantial increases in their caseload, the tribunals have made substantial improvements in recent years in efficiency. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer gave us the figures and outlined the size of the problem regarding the caseload in the pipeline. Despite improvements in efficiency, there is always further room for improvement. To achieve that, my noble and learned friend's Bill aims to give the tribunals additional tools to streamline procedures which should be welcome to both employer and employee alike. No one wants to waste time unnecessarily at an industrial tribunal hearing if it can be avoided. The Bill will ensure that proceeding are dispatched efficiently and effectively in accordance with the interests of justice.
Some noble Lords were concerned about the internal procedures. The Bill will give the tribunal the discretion to consider all of the circumstances of a case and in particular the likelihood of success of an appeal. This will allow tribunals to take account of procedures which were forced upon employees and which were not even-handed. The tribunal will also take account, as it is required to do by the 1992 Act, of the ACAS code of practice. The code states that it is good practice to give details of disciplinary action in writing and at the same time the employee should be told of any right of appeal, how to make it and to whom.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy was concerned about dismissal procedures agreements. Clause 12 is about dismissal procedures agreements. It seems to me that it does exactly what the noble Lord is asking for. It makes the legislation more flexible. This Bill was prepared by the previous government and we are happy to support it. However, the previous government appeared to want to remove rights from employees in small firms. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, raised that point. In our business manifesto Equipping Britain for the Future we stated that small firms were the bedrock of a successful enterprise economy and that we would give small firms the backing they deserve. We also stated that we believe in fairness at work. This Bill deals with both those aspects.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was in no way suggesting that small firms should not be subject to the same considerations. I refer to their ability to handle this procedure. If there were a simpler method, that would be more satisfactory.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's remarks will be taken into account by ACAS when preparing its scheme for arbitration and simple procedure. Fundamentally this Bill does not affect the rights of employees but it tries to improve the system for resolving disputes at work. We stand for trust, partnership and co-operation and not confrontation. My noble friend Lady Turner was concerned about
1608
flexibility and effects on family life. We believe in real flexibility in the workplace and in trying to make it easier to resolve disputes, not make it easier to sack people. This Bill makes a positive contribution to the resolution of disputes. I hope that it will gain the support that it deserves from your Lordships' House.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is customary at this stage in a debate to thank all noble Lords who have participated. That I do with complete sincerity. I am most grateful for the suggestions which have been made and for the general and generous support which the Bill has received. I am particularly reassured by the support it has received from the Front Benches on the part of the three noble Lords who have spoken from that position.
As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, I never claimed that the Bill is perfect. That is an easy renunciation on my part because I do not claim credit for drafting it. I therefore escape any of the blame which may arise.
I commend the Bill for the reasons which some of your Lordships have given. I refer in particular to the backlog spoken of by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, who said that it arose largely from the proliferation of new rights which had been given for all the right reasons. One of the spin-offs, necessarily, is a burden on tribunals and, consequently, a backlog. My noble friend Lady Turner spoke of a period of destabilised employment giving rise to more claims. However, my noble friend Lord Gladwin emphasised that the purpose of the Bill is to get rid of the backlog, which must be in the interests of all who use industrial tribunals.
I have been warned of the wrath to come in Committee. I suspect that it will be wrath of a fairly gentle nature. I do not think that it helps if I try to anticipate all our Committee debates. I was asked about the arbitration proposals. My noble friend Lord McCarthy asked why there should be arbitration at all. That point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Is it not better to do the whole thing in public? Surely, wherever possible, our system of justice should hold its proceedings in public so we can all see what is happening and we have a system of precedents which we can consult. Normally I would agree with that. But, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, it is not proposed that industrial tribunals should be abolished and replaced totally by arbitration. That will be one other option in what the parties consider to be appropriate cases. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that what was being suggested was intended only to divert cases from industrial tribunals. That is exactly the case. Why that should be regarded as a condemnation of the proposal escapes me for the moment. No doubt in our subsequent debates the argument will be developed.
It may be possible to frame arbitration in such a way that one eliminates those issues which—because we have printed forms—necessarily confront industrial tribunals. That may save a lot of time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that speed in itself is not a

1609
disadvantage; it is a positive advantage for the parties. When one is asked—it was a question put by my noble friend Lord McCarthy—what is the inducement for employees to adopt this procedure, the obvious answer is speed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, surprised me as he almost suggested that speed was to be deplored and that leisurely proceedings should be embraced for their own sake. He drew a picture of leisurely cross-examination at great length by fat cat lawyers or whoever, as though this was—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I never believe in lengthy cross-examination. I do not even believe in fat cat lawyers, if it comes to that. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord quite understood what I was trying to say. I am not suggesting that the proceedings should not be as speedy as possible, but that there should be full consideration. I am concerned that too much haste means that a person feels he does not have his day in court.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I say at once that I would never dream of suggesting that the noble Lord practises unduly lengthy cross-examination. I know from his reputation that that would be totally false. However, I gained the impression at one stage that he rather thought that leisurely proceedings were to be embraced for their own sake. Of course proceedings should take the time which is required for justice. However, if that can be done by arbitration in a suitable case I should have thought that might commend itself to employees.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I never said that there should not be arbitration, and I never said that there should not be speed. What I am trying to get the noble and learned Lord to say—and what I have tried to get the Government to say, without success—is whether some additional incentives will be included to improve arbitration so that we obtain more than speed; we obtain justice.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords my noble friend has anticipated what would have been my next sentence. I was going to pick up the point which he made; namely, the more incentives we can include, the better. I wholly support that idea. If the noble Lord has any proposals to make, as far as I am concerned at least, there will be an open ear. I gather that there will also be an open ear on the part of my noble friend Lord Haskel.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy then asked the converse question: what happens if people are pressured to adopt arbitration? That is a question which can be asked in relation to almost any option which one gives. What happens if undue pressure is put upon people to take one course rather than another? I am not sure that one can ever say that any course is pressure proof. However, if we can think of ways of resisting pressure that can lead only to improvements in the Bill.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about a situation where there are divergent
1610
interpretations by arbitrators on the one hand and by tribunals on the other. As he said, part of the safeguard will be judicial review. I wholly accept that that is not a total safeguard. I am not sure what legislative provisions will avert that. However, as my noble friend said, it may be that all of us during our idle hours in the summer can reflect on the matter from time to time and return in the autumn with some ideas.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy asked who the arbitrators would be. To a great extent, my noble friend Lord Haskel answered that question. The Bill does not prepare a scheme; the scheme will be prepared by ACAS. If ACAS can prepare a draft scheme and give us some ideas, incorporating those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, that might greatly aid our debates in the autumn.
My noble friend Lord Gladwin raised the question of the words "or otherwise re-employed" in Clause 7. He was kind enough to warn me that he might raise the matter. My noble friend is right. The reason for those words is that they offer arbitrators greater flexibility. It may very well be that one of the attractions of arbitration is its greater flexibility. However, I take my noble friend's point that we must be careful not to change the substantive law and the well understood remedies by what is a side-wind. Again, I should be happy to continue our discussions in the autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the matter of determinations without a full hearing. He rather gave the impression that there cannot be many occasions when that is appropriate. I am not sure. I believe that there are such occasions and that, if asked, any experienced chairman of tribunals would agree. The noble Lord then said that if people were to be asked to consent to that, they should have accessible legal advice. I gave my reasons for not wanting to write that provision into the Bill in my introduction. I can see how desirable it would be if there were some other way of ensuring that; I hope that we may find ways of encouraging people to take such advice.
The noble Lord also said that he was not very happy with the provision that, once the advice had been given, it was not possible to withdraw it. That has to do with administration. If someone, having given consent and the whole proceedings having then gone ahead on that basis, says, "I've had second thoughts about this; I'm going to change my mind. We shall have to go right back to the beginning and start again", it would impose intolerable burdens on the administration. Again, if there are ways of compromising on that point, perhaps we can do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, was unhappy with compromise agreements, particularly because, as matters stand, if we are not to have qualified lawyers giving the advice, it could be someone without any qualifications at all. The safeguard against that is that one has to have indemnity cover. Obtaining such cover, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, is not an easy matter in any case. In fact, one of the problems is that it will be almost impossible for many perfectly well qualified people to obtain it. Most of us could give examples of the kind of people who might give very

1611
good and sensible advice and who are not lawyers. Whether we can list them in the Bill is a rather more difficult question. Again, it is a matter for discussion in the autumn, but I am not sure.
I turn to in-house procedures. My noble friends Lord Wedderburn, Lady Turner and Lord Gladwin were troubled that in-house procedures mean that the last word rests with the employers. I would point out, as did my noble friend Lord Haskel, that tribunals already take account of ACAS guidance which states that employees should be brought into the consultations. I know that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has his reservations about that. The matter should be discussed further. I see the dangers. However, I hope that he will understand what are the reasons for encouraging people not to go to tribunals if the matter can be resolved more easily at an early stage.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn and the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, asked about legal officers. I anticipate that they will probably be people who are barristers and solicitors of a certain seniority. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right. The concept is that of an interlocutory judge. Almost by definition, an interlocutory judge will not necessarily have the qualifications and training of a more senior judge. So it is in a sense a way of saving on the time of chairmen. I should not have thought that the proposal is any the worse for that; in fact, that is one of the purposes of the Bill. Again, we shall hear more in due course as to who they will be.
A number of proposals came within what I tried to formulate in my introduction as matters that might be better left to other legislation. My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord Gladwin spoke about the need for an improvement in the substantive law in this area. They are pushing at an open door so far as I am concerned. I am not sure, however, that this is the Bill under which that can be achieved. My noble friend Lord Gladwin mentioned in particular the two-year rule, and I could not agree more.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, suggested some kind of exemption for small firms. He may be pushing at a rather more closed door in my case in that respect. But our debates may have to be in relation to other legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to write to me about the two proposals mentioned by the noble Lord. Both are matters in relation to which the Government are presently involved in working groups. It may be more sensible to wait to see what those groups produce. Again, it is a matter for discussion later.
I am very grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill. I look forward to our further debates with great interest, and not a little apprehension. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Allocation of Housing (Reasonable and Additional Preference) Regulations 1997
1.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in our manifesto we promised to restore a proper safety net for families and vulnerable individuals who are made homeless through no fault of their own. These regulations are the first step towards fulfilling that undertaking. The provisions in Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, which limit the protection that could be given to homeless households, were a matter of grave concern in your Lordships' House when they were introduced in 1996. These regulations would ensure that households owed a homelessness duty receive proper priority for rehousing in long-term social housing.
The policy framework we are now putting in place to deal with homelessness consists of three elements. One is the introduction of new resources. We covered that in the debate in this House this week on the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill. The second is the fostering of partnerships between all organisations that deal with the homeless. The initiative that we are taking to deal with the problem of rough sleepers is an example of the partnerships that we are trying to foster. The third is genuine and regular consultation. That consultation preceded the regulations that are before us today.
These regulations are necessary because, under Part VII of the 1996 Act, a local housing authority may be obliged to secure suitable accommodation for a homeless household, but only for a period of two years. When that period ends, the authority may, in certain circumstances, decide to continue to secure accommodation for the household, although it cannot use its own stock for more than two years out of any three-year period.
This principal homelessness duty, limited as it is, does not even apply where an authority is satisfied that there is other suitable private sector accommodation available in the district. In those circumstances, an authority's only duty is to provide advice and assistance. We have, to some extent, addressed this lack of security by making an order under Section 210 of the Act which provides that other accommodation shall not be regarded as suitable unless the authority is satisfied that it is available for occupation by the household for at least two years.
The overall effect of these arrangements would nevertheless be to leave a homeless household in a continuing state of uncertainty. That adds to the considerable disruption and misery that they would already have experienced. That is why it is necessary that these regulations are made.
The existing position is that under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 there is a single route into long-term social housing through an authority's housing register.

1613
Section 167 of the Act sets out certain categories of household to whom "reasonable preference" must be given within an allocation scheme. These are households in overcrowded, insanitary, temporary or insecure accommodation; persons with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical, welfare, social or economic grounds; and households including a pregnant woman or dependent children. There is no place in the list for households defined as owed a principal homelessness duty. In including these households in these categories receiving preference, the Government is making very clear to local authorities the importance that they attach to the experience of homelessness in determining priorities for long-term, stable housing allocation.
The regulations add to the list in Section 167 various new categories that cover everyone who is unintentionally homeless and in priority need. They include those people to whom the main duty is owed both under the existing and the earlier homelessness legislation and people who have within the previous two years been referred to other suitable accommodation in the private sector in discharge of the homelessness duty. Households owed a homelessness duty would thus be rehoused more quickly, reducing the often heavy financial burden on authorities of having to secure and finance temporary accommodation for them.
There is one other point I should bring to the attention of the House. The regulations also remedy an oversight in Section 167 as drafted. 'Additional preference' is to be given to households which consist of or include someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds where they cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation in the foreseeable future. As currently expressed, the entitlement applies only to individuals. Regulation 3 extends the entitlement to all households falling within the medical category which cannot be expected to find settled accommodation. This would enable authorities to take account of other cases in this group—for example, where the household includes a carer who has to provide around-the-clock care for the person in his or her charge.
These regulations will begin to restore hope to homeless families and vulnerable individuals who have become homeless and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not propose at this time on a Friday to rehearse the many arguments we had across the Dispatch Boxes on this subject so very recently. I think we had an honourable disagreement of principle as to whether it was right to include homelessness in the Bill—as the noble Baroness now proposes to do in effect—and thereby to continue, as we saw it, the iniquities of queue-jumping or whether it was better to do as the noble Baroness now proposes and have it as an added factor which can be taken into account. We have to accept that the Government are going to try it their way.
1614
However, I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness could write to me and say how she proposes to measure the success of the policy change. What statistics does she wish to see improved and in what way in the future? I do not expect an answer now but I would appreciate a letter.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I might even be tempted to tell him how wrong he is to think that this measure will encourage queue-jumping. I hope that we shall not see the number of homeless families in this country increase during the lifetime of this Administration as they did—to more than double—during the lifetime of the previous administration.
We believe that the housing needs of individuals and households who will have been found by local authorities to have become homeless through no fault of their own and to be in priority need—I agree with the noble Lord that we had a disagreement in principle on this issue—will be as severe and as genuine as those of any other household on the housing register and it is right that their needs should be addressed by local authorities through this measure. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 1997
1.35 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July 1997 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order before the House today will, if approved, effect a modest, but nonetheless useful, amendment to a previous order. As such, it should not, I hope, be controversial.
The House will doubtless find it helpful if I explain something of the background to, and purpose of, the order. The Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA for short) replaced private Bills with ministerial orders as the means by which new railways, tramways and other forms of guided transport are authorised in England and Wales. (It also covered inland waterways and works interfering with rights of navigation, but that need not concern the House today.) The Act came into force on 1st January 1993.
The order-making procedures are set out in Part I of the Act. Section 1 enables the Secretary of State to make an order for the construction of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and guided transport systems using modes prescribed by order made under Section 2. The legislation was framed in this way to ensure that the powers were sufficiently flexible to enable the order-making procedure to extend to novel or unusual forms of transport by affirmative orders. If the types of guided transport had been set out on the face of the Act, non-conventional forms of guided transport which had

1615
not been foreseen at the time would only have been capable of being authorised by means of a private Bill or by amendment of the TWA itself.
The first Section 2 order—the Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992—prescribed eight modes of guided transport. These are summarised in the explanatory note. While the range of potential guided systems has proved—so far as we can judge—to be sufficiently comprehensive, the 1992 order restricted their application to, in effect, passenger carrying systems. The reason for this is not entirely clear, although it may have been assumed that guided transport systems were unlikely to have a freight carrying application.
However, the previous administration agreed that a public consultation exercise should be undertaken with a view to removing the restriction. This took place earlier this year. Very few responses were received but those who did respond either welcomed the proposed change or had no comments.
It is in response to the public consultation that the order is being introduced now. The timing has been prompted by a proposal, still in its formative stage, by a private sector and Royal Mail consortium to make use of the existing Royal Mail tunnels under London to develop a new automatic freight distribution system called Metrofreight. This would use rubber-tyred, battery-driven, driverless vehicles to supply goods to major goods outlets in the Oxford Street area from a central distribution centre in Willesden. The project would involve additional tunnelling, for which TWA powers would be required. It is claimed that this project has the potential significantly to reduce lorry deliveries in central London and hence bring welcome relief from congestion and other environmental benefits.
I should stress that the making of this order today would not necessarily mean that the Secretary of State would approve that scheme. It would be considered only in the context of an application made under Section 1 of the Act. But such an application would be made possible by this amendment order.
I should explain that broadening the prescription of guided transport to include the carriage of goods is not designed to increase regulation in relation to these types of work or to cover any guided freight systems which do not currently require TWA powers. The order will simply enable promoters of guided freight systems who require such powers to apply for them through the Transport and Works Act process rather than to have to petition Parliament by a private Bill. This is wholly consistent with the purposes of the 1996 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July 1997 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome this order. It is obviously desirable not to put any legislative difficulties in the way of increased carriage of freight off the road. The proposal for Metrofreight to serve Oxford Street sounds like an
1616
excellent example of what might be encouraged by this order. It also occurs to me that the viability of some guided rail systems might be increased if they were able to carry freight as well as passengers. I think that in all respects this is an excellent order.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to thank the Minister for her succinct explanation of the order. It is clearly beneficial to be able to use the TWA for goods and freight. I shall be interested to follow the exciting Royal Mail-Metrofreight development. We are entirely content with the order.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have only one query. Magnetic levitation is shown as prescribed mode 2(c) in the 1992 order. In the few weeks preceding the recent election we sometimes saw the Natural Law Party doing their yogic dancing, bouncing up and down, backwards and forwards. I ask the noble Baroness, albeit with tongue in cheek, whether they should have been added to the list of prescribed modes. Is not that some form of magnetic levitation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not wish to stray into the realms of the party political in your Lordships' House in that way. However, I must say that yogic bouncing seems to me at least to be a very green form of transport, and we have to encourage that. I am sure that under the magnetic levitation provisions of the Transport and Works Act, it would be well included.
I am grateful for the support that we have received. As I said, this is a minor measure but it is one which may help use transport freight in an environmentally acceptable way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hailsham Cattle Market Bill [H.L.]
1.40 p.m.
Lord Kenilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I welcome all noble Lords who intend to speak in this debate and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Hoyle and Lord Newton, for whom the debate will mark their maiden speech in this House.
The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the Hailsham Cattle Market Company of any duty imposed by the Hailsham Cattle Market Act 1871 to continue and maintain a market. The Bill is also intended to provide the company with the power to sell or otherwise dispose of the market site in Hailsham, which is currently in its ownership. The Bill is promoted jointly by the Hailsham Cattle Market Company and Carter Commercial Developments Limited, the latter being a company which hopes to play a part in the eventual redevelopment of the market site.
The Hailsham Cattle Market Act 1871, which this Bill seeks to amend, was part of a 19th century trend aimed at ending the widespread practice of trading livestock on the streets of market towns. That Act turned the Hailsham Cattle Market Company into a statutory

1617
company with powers to establish and maintain a market in the parish of Hailsham. The purpose of the 1871 Act was to bring to an end the practice of trading livestock in the streets. Needless to say, that was a 19th century problem and in that respect the 1871 Act is now redundant.
The present day position of the company is that 210 shares in the company are owned by members of two families and have been owned by members of the same families in the same proportion since 1946. The company has not in living memory run the market although various shareholders have been involved with the market in other capacities over the years. Rather, the company has leased the site to firms and individuals, always on the condition that they operate a cattle market on the site. Equally, the company does not carry on any activities other than those related to the market. The company's only asset is the market site and its only activity is the collection of rent from the site.
Therefore, the 1871 Act has created a situation in which private individuals are burdened with a statutory duty to provide a particular service in a particular location without being able to have regard to the changes in demand for that service or to their ability to provide the service. Changes in the UK livestock business in recent years mean that the operation of markets such as Hailsham is no longer a viable commercial proposition. For that reason the current tenant of Hailsham market, South East Marts Limited, intends to vacate the premises upon the expiry of its lease in the year 2001, if not before.
In recent years, there have been five major changes in the UK livestock business which have contributed to the decline of the traditional town centre cattle market. First, the Government's announcement on 20th March 1996 of a possible link between BSE in cattle and CJD in humans and the subsequent export ban imposed by the European Commission on 24th March 1996 have reduced the demand for British beef generally and thus the number of cattle required by abattoirs and supermarkets. In addition, 1.5 million animals have been removed permanently from the food chain by the cull ordered under the over-30 month scheme.
The second point is that, even before the BSE crisis, supermarkets were expressing a preference for stock sourced directly from the farm, thus eliminating livestock markets from the supply chain. With the onset of the BSE crisis, supermarkets began, and are continuing, to intervene in terms of inspection of the supply chain both on farms and at the abattoirs. Many large abattoirs have forced a stop-purchase for livestock markets altogether, thus reducing the volume of business for such markets nationwide.
Thirdly, new methods of marketing livestock have developed which do not include the traditional livestock market. For example, electronic livestock marketing, that is sales between farmers and abattoirs over a computer system and is preferred by many farmers as it involves animals being transported directly from the farm to the abattoir. In contrast, finished animals that are marketed through livestock markets have to be transported from the farm to the market and from the
1618
market to the abattoir. In some cases, stock is purchased by intermediary traders before eventually being purchased by the abattoir.
Fourthly, the abattoir industry in the UK is contracting. The Meat and Livestock Commission is currently working with the Government to devise a scheme to reduce the over-capacity in the abattoir industry (estimated at 40 per cent.) by mothballing many of the remaining non-viable plants. Such a move will have a major impact upon transport times to and from livestock markets (and therefore, upon transport costs), making markets with poor access to abattoirs, such as Hailsham, unviable. At present, most buyers in the south-east have to pass through Guildford or Ashford on their way to major abattoirs, giving those markets a significant location advantage over Hailsham.
The contraction in the abattoir industry cannot be ascribed to BSE alone. Sheep throughput is also in decline. Using Hailsham as an example, sheep throughput fell by over 6,000 in 1995, and by 6,500 in 1996. The decline in sheep sales figures over the period 1991 to 1996 has also been experienced by Ashford and Guildford markets.
Finally, increased regulation of the livestock industry, much of which emanates from the European Union, is placing increasingly heavy burdens upon livestock markets. A recent example is the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which came into force on 1st July 1997. The order imposes a basic eight-hour limit upon the time in which an animal may be in transit in one day. That means that many animals travelling from livestock markets to abattoirs will need to be kept at the market overnight, which is known as lairage. Suitable lairage facilities are found only at large livestock markets, such as Guildford and Ashford. Hailsham market immediately adjoins a residential area and simply does not have the space or facility to accommodate that.
In view of the shift of the UK livestock business away from the traditional livestock market, no livestock market can achieve an adequate return on capital on the basis of the livestock sales alone. In order to survive, cattle markets must diversify. The successful cattle market of the future will have to operate as a property company with many different activities apart from the sale of cattle. The successful markets of Guildford and Ashford supplement livestock activities by renting space to retail outlets, running non-livestock auctions, providing farm services and running stall markets—car sales and so forth.
South East Marts has attempted such diversification at Hailsham market by introducing a Friday stalls market. That is profitable on a very small scale but it or activities like it would need to take place at the present level on at least five days a week in order to bring the market as a whole into substantial profit.
The limitations of the site itself restrict the scope of management initiatives aimed at expanding operations. There is no space available for physical expansion to provide, for example, better vehicle access, overnight lairage and ancillary services. Furthermore, intensification of activities would lead to an

1619
environmental health problem in view of the market's location—adjacent to a residential area—and planning restrictions upon intensification of commercial use in the Hailsham town centre contained in the local plan.
Hailsham market is not of a size or location that satisfies the needs of large livestock farmers and buyers. Even if the market could be made profitable in the short term as a result of initiatives such as the establishment of stalls markets, once major capital investment is required either by a failure of the present infrastructure or through statutory requirements, the market would cease to be viable and would not be able to generate enough income to justify major capital injection. That point is almost certain to be reached at some time in the next five years. In the present market conditions Hailsham market, at three acres, is thought to be too small to be profitable and environmentally sound.
The market has not yielded a return on the company's 1990 capital investment of £350,000. Furthermore, capital investment in site is out of the question as the market cannot generate the level of profit necessary to justify such outlay. That is why there have been no major improvements in the market facilities since 1990.
Having examined the markets throughput figures in the years 1992 through 1996, it is clear to the accountants—Deloitte & Touche—that the volume of fat cattle passing through the market has fallen in each of those years. That drop is typical of markets in the south-east. According to the Meat and Livestock Commission figures published in Farmers' Weekly, Hailsham, Guildford and Ashford markets have all seen significant reductions in fat cattle throughput during 1996, ranging from a 30 per cent. fall for Ashford to a 45 per cent. fall at Guildford. Hailsham is in between, reducing by 38 per cent. over the same period. Even the volume of store cattle—cattle sold from one farm to another and not intended for immediate slaughter—dropped over the past three years.
As many noble Lords will know, there are various objectors in principle to this Bill, including the National Farmers Union, Somerfield Stores and Wealden District Council. Somerfield's objection that development as a supermarket is planned for the site and that Hailsham does not need another supermarket in view of there being a Somerfield outlet in the town centre, is clearly an anti-competitive one. However, the promoters of the Bill acknowledge that the objection from the local farming community merits serious consideration. I know that many of your Lordships agree with that.
The farming objection is based on the fact that the seasonal store market at Hailsham market is used by many local farmers. Indeed, those uses make up the vast majority of petitioners against the Bill. The promoters have, in recent months, been working towards a compromise proposal which will go a long way towards addressing those concerns. The Hailsham Cattle Market Company is willing to continue to provide a store cattle market in the Hailsham vicinity; indeed, a site has already been found at a distance of approximately two miles from the town and the proposal has been put to the petitioners.
1620
One of the petitioners—the National Farmers Union—is currently putting that proposal to interested members. Another petitioner—the Hailsham Market Action Group—has responded through its solicitors setting out a number of anxieties which I should like briefly to address. First, the action group points out that 59 per cent. of the Hailsham market's 1996 turnover was accounted for by trade in store cattle. The action group clearly wishes to underline the importance and volume of that aspect of the market's activities. The promoters are well aware that the store market is the best used of its services at Hailsham. It is for precisely those reasons that the alternative store market is proposed. The alternative market would provide capacity for at least the equivalent of Hailsham's current store cattle throughput.
Secondly, the action group points out that the store cattle market is presently held fortnightly all year round. The promoters' proposal, on the other hand, is that the market should be held only during the store seasons—that is, March through June and October and November. The sales in other months are minimal.
Thirdly, comment is made as to the inadequacy of Blackbarn Farm in its present condition in terms of facilities for office accommodation, parking and access. In response to that, I am informed that it is not the promoters' intention to carry on a market on that site in its present state. It is prepared to sign an undertaking to the effect that, in the event of the Bill being enacted, adequate facilities in terms of parking, access, staff and buildings will be provided. I understand that that can be done within the existing planning constraints.
The action group is concerned that assurances from the promoters might not be honoured or that the existing store market might close before the new market opens. Those concerns can be dealt with in the promoters' undertaking which could be made either to this House or to the local authority. The details of the arrangement would of course be for a committee to decide.
The petitioners' concerns are very much reflected in the Instructions to be moved by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton and Lord Wrenbury. I should like to speak on those Instructions. Beginning with the Instruction to be moved by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that the committee should consider the relationship between the joint promoters, the market tenant and third parties, the promoters inform me that they have no objection whatever to disclosing those relationships to the committee.
The second Instruction is also entirely acceptable to the promoters. Some dialogue has already taken place in that regard and no doubt the committee will wish to inform itself on the subject. In respect of the third Instruction that the committee should consider alternative arrangements sufficient for the needs of other market users as well as local farmers, I confirm that the reference to "other market users" is meant to indicate other livestock users such as butchers and not non-livestock users—notably, stall holders at the weekly "tat" sales. While consideration should certainly be given to non-livestock uses, possibly for their relocation,

1621
it should be borne in mind that the promoters' statutory responsibilities under the 1871 Act do not extend to the provision of those non-livestock activities.
As regards the Instruction to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, the promoters assure me that a representative of South East Marts Limited will be available for questioning by the committee on the subjects mentioned. It appears to me that all of the petitioners' concerns are matters on which some agreement could be reached. I am further encouraged by the fact that a dialogue between the parties is already established.
In summary, the duty imposed on the Hailsham Cattle Market Company by the Hailsham Cattle Market Act 1871 is incompatible with the market economy and principles of supply and demand. It is unjust that the shareholders of the statutory company, who for the most part have inherited their shares, should be burdened with the responsibility to carry on a commercial enterprise which is demonstrably doomed to failure. The Bill will also enable a more appropriate use to be made of a prime town site in Hailsham.
Some of your Lordships have expressed reservations about this Bill on the grounds that the promoters should not be permitted to free themselves of a statutory obligation, albeit one that is 126 years old, without making some form of return to the community in exchange. The point that I should like to make to those noble Lords preparing to object to the Bill is that the promoters are demonstrating a flexibility of approach which should enable a solution acceptable both to the promoters and to the majority of petitioners to be reached in Committee. I think that the good faith of all parties concerned in their genuine desire to come to an agreement can be relied upon in this case for the simple reason that if the Bill does not become law the promoters will be unable to provide a cattle market on this site due to the financial impracticabilities of doing so but will, equally, be unable to sell the site. I fear that the result may well be a derelict site in Hailsham town centre and a complete loss of market facilities in the vicinity. That is of course an unattractive prospect to all concerned.
There is enough common ground between the promoters and petitioners so that your Lordships need not fear a situation in which the House's time is wasted by the ultimate failure of the promoters to accept the results of your Lordships' deliberations in Committee. I would urge then that the House should follow its usual practice and allow the Bill to proceed to a Committee where a detailed debate can take place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Kenilworth.)
2.2 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that, since the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, has told us that he is prepared to accept the Instructions
1622
being given and that therefore when they are moved in their turn they will not be opposed in your Lordships' House and will come into force, I do not propose to take the amendment standing in my name to a Division but will seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw it accordingly.
The Instructions which have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, and of the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, who is not quite my noble kinsman but my noble relation by marriage and my noble fellow cleric, are extremely good. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, on accepting them.
Although I am totally opposed to the Bill, I understand that the proposers have a case in wishing the arguments about it to be considered in rather more detail than is possible in a Second Reading debate. I would not want them to be able to come back to your Lordships' House at a later stage and say that they were muzzled the first time round. One must weigh that against the fact that the proposers for the most part must be considered to be rich and that some of the most important, in my eyes, of the petitioners are extremely poor and it will be a strain on their resources to maintain their petitions. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that enough of the petitioners have resources that it would probably be of benefit to everyone to have all the arguments out into the open at a Committee stage.
I was first alerted to the Bill by an admirable article in the Sunday Telegraph by Adam Nicolson. That prompted me, as spokesman for conservation of the countryside for the party on whose Benches I sit, to contact the local Liberal Democrat councillors. I was considerably helped by Councillor Michael Skinner, who was at that time the prospective parliamentary candidate for Wealden and is still a local councillor.
There are a number of marginal arguments for and against the Bill and, doubtless, as a result of the Instructions which the House is going to give, they will be fully argued out. But I shall devote my short speech, in the spirit of the swingeing Motion I have put down, to a fairly swingeing attack on the principle involved. I start from the principle that the burden of proof is clearly on any party trying to set aside an Act of Parliament to prove why, considering all things, this should be done, and that burden is not discharged by merely saying or even proving that it makes economic sense to do so. It must make social sense as well and it is indeed all things which must be considered and not just economic things.
Markets are, or certainly were, part of the countryside. They are an important part of the countryside. Just recently we have seen a great rally in Hyde Park on behalf of the countryside. It was very impressive. One did not have to be a defender of hunting, which I am not, to know that there is a very real sense in which the countryside in the sense in which many of us knew it 50 years ago has been sidelined by modern life.
The local cattle market is part of that countryside. Many of us know it from personal experience as well as from the writings of such splendid chroniclers of the rural scene as Adrian Bell, whose distinguished son won

1623
such a resounding victory to become a Member of another place at the last election. They are important places for members of the farming community to meet regularly. They are of more than passing importance at a time when the rate of suicide among farmers is extremely high. They minimise the distance that animals have to travel, a point which has just been brought up. They are an important factor in trying to limit the distress which animals destined for our table have to endure. They are an irreplaceable source of fresh, locally produced meat for local butchers. In this case we are fortunate that there is located very near to the market an abattoir, so one of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, is negated by the fact that the farmers can take their beasts to the market and they can go straight to the abattoir without further trouble.
Markets are especially needed in districts such as those around Hailsham where the nature of the soil and of the farming is such that in any system of sane, extensive farming, grazing is the main form of agriculture. A lot of the farms are small, mixed farms of exactly the kind that I believe we should go out of our way to encourage to survive.
Also to be considered in the present debate is preserving a healthy diversity in the centres of market towns. Hailsham is almost a textbook case and is the better for having at its centre both a cattle market and a supermarket. It would not contribute to that diversity to do away with that market and to have another supermarket. There is no presumption that just because the previous Secretary of State for the Environment took an overdue and admirable stand against out-of-town supermarkets—a stand which the present Government continue and my party supports—any supermarket that wishes has a pre-emptive right to find a site in the middle of a town. Supermarkets are all very well in their way—I use them myself, although as little as I can—but they are not essential to the life of a town. A healthy town centre with diversity of planning is essential.
Great play is made of the fact that the present market is in economic decline. There must, I am afraid, be reason to doubt whether it has been managed as well as it should have been, and even, I am afraid, as to whether the heart of the present management is in managing it well. It has been said on the very best authority that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, and there is a lot of treasure involved in allowing the market to decline and then promoting a Bill like this.
It is possible that there will come a time when the economic and social factors are such that a supermarket is more wanted by the local community than a cattle market in Hailsham. Then it might be right (though even then I would probably doubt it) to revoke the actions of our ancestors and pass such a Bill as this.
But this has not yet occurred and your Lordships will bear in mind that the proponents of this Bill stand to gain a large amount of money from the passing of the Bill, while the bill (in the other sense of the word) will be paid by the farming, and indeed the whole rural community, of the area. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a Second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
2.10 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry to intrude on your Lordships' time to make my maiden speech, particularly as it is getting rather late on a Friday afternoon for the House to be sitting. Nevertheless, I must say a few words in relation to the Bill and about myself. It might be at first considered that I am rather unusual in speaking in an agricultural debate, particularly as in another place I represented two urban areas; namely, Nelson and Colne, which was famed for its textiles, and Warrington, in which I saw the change from declining industries such as steel and engineering to new technologies and the industries of the future.
However, as we say about many things, all is not what one sees at first when looking at something. I claim that I am specially privileged to be able to speak on agriculture in this respect. I make the point that I have never lived in a town. I spent all my life in a village; namely, the village of Adlington, which is on the Pennines, where there is a large number of farmers, particularly farmers with store cattle, and that is what we are referring to today. Also my first constituency was Clitheroe, which is well known for agriculture and in which I had to gain quite a lot of knowledge about agriculture itself. Even as regards Nelson and Colne and Warrington, while they are industrial, there are many farmers, in particular in Warrington, which is surrounded by the plains of Cheshire in which farmers proliferate.
One of the aspects that I remember about my time at Clitheroe is that in 1992 I not only spoke on agriculture but I was often called on by the regional party to speak on agriculture in other places. On one occasion I was called on to address the Bolton and District Farmers. Unfortunately, for some mysterious reason the two prospective candidates suddenly found that they could not be there.
The other spokesperson at the meeting was the late Alderman Edwin Taylor, who had won a by-election to be the Member of Parliament for Bolton, East. You could say that Alderman Taylor was a card. Indeed, in the north-west we would say that he was a character. As he had a confectioner's shop, he was known locally as "The Pie-man". I did not know what to expect when he went along to the meeting. When I got there, I said, "Alderman, it's your constituency, after you", but he said, "Don't bother about that, lad, you go first". So, off I went. There was quite a large audience. Although people listened with interest and asked a number of questions I could see that they had not come to hear me; they had really come to see the local champion, the alderman. I was like a rabbit being pursued by a stoat and I could not help but look at the huge pile of papers that was in front of Alderman Taylor. I could see that they were all about agriculture. I stared and stared at the papers.

1625
When I sat down to loud applause, up got Alderman Taylor. He got hold of the pile of papers, threw them on the floor and said, "These were sent to me by Central Office. As you know I am a busy man and I haven't had the time to read any of them. I say this to you: if you don't believe in subsidies, I don't; and if you have a query, please write to me at my office", and he sat down. I do not know who was the more startled—the audience or myself. It is a pity sometimes that we do not have Alderman Taylor in this House. I am sure that we would have shorter speeches.
I return to the Hailsham Cattle Market Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, who spoke on behalf of the promoters to move the Bill, said that throughput is failing, partly because many of the cattle now go direct to an abattoir or are bought by supermarkets. For a period the closure of Haywards Heath market in 1990 improved the input, but it has now been in decline since 1992. As we have heard, although efforts have been made to make the cattle market viable, it has not proved possible and the decline still continues. Unless the Bill is carried, the company will not want to continue with the lease after 2001.
On the other hand, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the other side of the argument is that we must bear in mind that there has been a Hailsham cattle market since the 13th century. If it closes, there will be no other live cattle market in Sussex. As East Sussex is not suitable for other forms of farming, apart from store cattle for which it is ideally suited, cattle from those farms would have to travel long distances on poor roads. That would be bad for the health of the animals and would increase costs for farmers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, commented, it is not believed that the present owners have really tried hard to make the market viable. Indeed, it is said that they are more interested in its closure so the site could he used for a supermarket, as has been mentioned. Although an alternative site has been offered (at Blackbarn Farm, two miles outside Hailsham), many of the local objectors do not believe that it is suitable for the purpose for which it is being presented. Indeed, they do not think that planning consent would be given.
For all of those reasons—we shall no doubt hear more from both sides during this debate—I rise to put forward the Government's position. The Government are neutral on private Bills unless those Bills conflict with government policy. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on this occasion the Bill does not conflict with government policy and that the Government's position is one of complete neutrality.
2.18 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, on behalf of the whole House on his maiden speech. I am glad and grateful that he chose to take an interest in this debate. The noble Lord brings to this House experience from a most varied and busy political career. I hope therefore that we shall continue to receive his wise counsel for a long time.
1626
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kenilworth for accepting the instruction than I tabled. He deserves the thanks of the House for giving noble Lords at long last the opportunity to give this Bill a Second Reading. Rather a long time has elapsed since the Bill was read a first time.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his somewhat drastic amendment to the Motion that this Bill be read a second time. I suspect that that was the catalyst that prompted my noble friend Lord Kenilworth to accept the instruction that I tabled. Now that has happened, I believe that on balance it is best that the Bill, together with both instructions that have been tabled, should go to the Select Committee on the ground that it will provide the surest decision most quickly. I say "on balance" because I am concerned about the finances of some of the petitioners. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already said, the House should bear in mind that this imposes a serious burden upon them.
At this stage I declare an interest. As a dairy farmer, I use the market. I live at Lewes, which is 18 miles from Hailsham. My family also owns land on the Pevensey Marsh. The market is of very great importance to the marsh. It is wet marsh that can do little else but fatten cattle, which it has always done very well. I am biased. I live in hope that the Select Committee will give this Bill short shrift in short time. I am of opinion that the promoters are spreading unnecessary doom and gloom among other things. Perhaps they protest too much.
As instructions can relate only to matters not covered by petitions—there are already 10 petitions against the Bill—before I speak to the instruction that I have tabled I should like to make a few general remarks about the Bill. Its purpose is simply to close Hailsham Market and develop the site. That will make a material difference to livestock farm economics in East Sussex in general and Pevensey Marsh in particular. Fifty years ago there were too many live auction markets; now we are rapidly reaching the stage where there are too few. For a long time the process has been left to market forces. In the past, regulation was found to be necessary. This applied for a very long time. One must bear in mind that Henry III granted the first Royal charter to Hailsham Market. That was amended in 1871 to get cattle off the street. As a matter of principle, I do not believe that now is the time to repeal any more of this old legislation. We may otherwise lose markets that we should not lose. This should be done only after the most thorough consideration. Markets have been closed down not because they are unviable but because of steeply rising property values. What is happening to live auction markets apart from Hailsham should be brought to the attention of this House. I make no apology for doing so.
To return to Hailsham, there is abundant evidence that the town wishes to keep its market and to remain a real market town. The shopkeepers and the town council say so. Farmers from a wide area around say so. The most important petitioner is Wealden District Council, the planning authority. Significantly it voted 51 to nil in opposing the Bill. I am glad that my noble friend Lord

1627
Newton is to make his maiden speech. He has been on Wealden Council for the past 10 years. So I shall say no more about that and leave it to him.
The House will find a great difference between what Wealden District Council says about planning and what the promoters say in the Bill's preamble. I stress the need to keep the market in Hailsham. It is a significant part of the town's historic identity. I am sorry that Lewes lost its market. Hailsham should try not to. The shareholders in the cattle market company should not expect Hailsham to surrender the cattle market against its will.
The Bill's preamble indicates a brave new world without live auction marts. In that connection I spoke to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, who cannot be here to speak today. He said that it is the live auctions which form the true markets and which set the prices. I had that confirmed by my contacts in the Meat and Livestock Commission. Live auctions are not yet dead. I shall leave that matter to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, because it is a subject upon which she has something to say.
I understand that South East Marts and Anglo Dutch Meats are both subsidiaries of a company called Cyberfoods. Anglo Dutch Meats is a substantial owner of abattoirs, operating on dead weight and grade. I am not alone in taking the view that that group favours dead weight and grade. Hence its desire to close markets. That is why it closed Haywards Heath, is currently closing Thame market in Oxfordshire, and is trying to close Hail sham.
I believe that I may now start talking to my instruction. The Bill's preamble states that the Hailsham Cattle Market Company, the owner of the market which leases it to South East Marts, has an agreement with Carter Commercial Developments Limited, who as I understand it are specialists in supermarket developments, to develop the market site. Little light has been thrown on the terms, who would benefit, and to what extent. Does that agreement preempt any serious attempt to look for alternative bodies to run the market?
The petitioners have evidence that the market could be made more profitable, certainly post-BSE; that other market traders would be interested and likely to pay the proprietors better rent than they have been receiving. That is in contrast to the gloom expressed in the Bill's preamble. The promoters appears to have conceded the need for a continuation of some sort of market by the last minute suggestion which came from their parliamentary agents to a few noble Lords, and which has not been referred to the petitioners, that a seasonal store market in some farm buildings in a nearby parish would be a sufficient answer. We have already gathered that the local farmers do not regard this as a satisfactory replacement. All kinds of difficulties relating to this unresearched proposition have suddenly burst upon us.
When South East Marts closed Haywards Heath market, it promised a satisfactory alternative market, which was to be off the London/Brighton Road. That market never materialised; the area remains as green a field as ever. Hence, promises from South East Marts
1628
have been trusted no further by farmers in Sussex. As regards the Hailsham Cattle Market, should not the promoters be obliged to find a satisfactory alternative and to have it up and running before they ask Parliament for permission to close the present market? If they go down that road, they must give a copper-bottomed assurance and provide truly adequate facilities.
If the Bill is read a second time, and I understand that it will be, I urge your Lordships to support my Motion for an instruction and the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, particularly as they have already been accepted by the promoters. This is by no means the time to consider closing Hailsham Cattle Market.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Newton: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I sell cattle at Hailsham Market and, as my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton said, I am a member of Wealden District Council, which is one of the petitioners against the Bill.
I am convinced that there is a need for some live market facilities to be retained. Although I do not trade in stores, many of my farming neighbours do. For that trade there is no satisfactory alternative to a live cattle market and it would be unacceptable to have to transport stock to distant markets beyond the county boundary.
An alternative site at Blackbarn Farm, Lower Dicker, has been proposed. I know the site extremely well—I used to own it. Even 10 years ago, it was highly dangerous to emerge from the farm. At that point the A.22 is much busier today. As a result, it is hard to believe that the local planning authority will grant planning permission for a cattle market on the site.
The planning policy of Wealden District Council, as expressed in its deposit local plan, is that the Hailsham Cattle Market is not subject to a specific allocation, nor does it lie within the town's main shopping area. Consequently, if new shopping facilities were proposed the applicants would need to present a particularly strong case and to satisfy a number of criteria, the most important being that the requirement for the site can be demonstrated. As a result of the presence of two supermarkets close by, there must be some doubt whether such a need can be established. I also know that there would be concerns about the impact of a new shopping development on the amenities of local residents, the local highway network and the designated conservation area.
It is argued that an alternative use of the town centre site would be of advantage and that the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties would be improved. When permission for the housing developments was granted, account was taken of the existence of the cattle market. According to the records kept by the district council, in the four years ended February 1997 there were on average only three or four minor complaints per year about the market. They were on the grounds of smell, flies from manure storage, noise from washing lorries, tannoy and music, and in one case a bonfire. In each case the response of the council was no more than what is euphemistically called an "informal referral to operator".

1629
It is difficult to believe that the use of the site as a supermarket would be a better neighbour. Moreover, it is likely that lorries servicing a supermarket would cause just as much inconvenience to residents as the cattle lorries do at present.
If the market were to close, many residents of Hailsham believe that that would have an adverse impact on the prosperity of the town and the surrounding area. It is felt that the market is an asset in promoting town revitalisation and attracts visitors from a wide area. It is difficult to see any advantage to the people of Hailsham or the surrounding area from the closure of the market. Indeed, many local organisations, including the town council, oppose it. I hope that I am not being controversial or excessively self-interested when I say that I should deeply regret its closure.
2.35 p.m.
Lord Wrenbury: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on his maiden speech. That is partly because I have never done such a thing before and partly because I find that we share the same school and the same profession, so he must obviously be a thoroughly good chap. I hope that we shall not have to wait as long to hear from him again because I understand that he succeeded to the title some five years ago. No doubt he delayed addressing your Lordships while getting to know the procedures of the House. The noble Lord made a very interesting speech with important points put forward forcefully and well, as I can testify because I was hoping to make some of them myself. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from him in the future.
I begin by making one extraordinarily obvious point; so obvious, in fact, that we may lose sight of it. It is that we are engaged in a democratic process and not a judicial process. When there are solicitors and counsel briefed to represent the interested parties before the Select Committee and sums are spent running into hundreds of thousands of pounds—I know one interested party has reserved £100,000 for this alone—when people talk about an estimated three-week hearing and when, quite properly, the formal documentation requires approval by the Private Bill Office, it is hardly surprising that the affair takes on the appearance of a trial.
But, in fact, we are engaged in a democratic process. Your Lordships will readily agree that that means listening to the will of the people. In the present case, I have noticed a reluctance on the part of some of those with the greatest personal interest in the outcome—by that I mean in particular the local farming community—to consider appearing before the Select Committee because they feel that they have neither the resources nor the expertise to do so. That seems to me a thoroughly unhealthy development. In my view, it would be much healthier if spokesmen were forbidden and that expense were cut out. Indeed, it defeats the very purpose for which the Select Committee procedures are devised and leads to too great a professionalism in democratic affairs.
1630
I do not believe that I have any financial interest in the matter, apart from living in the area and having tenant farmers who do. However, I remember vividly meeting my litigation clerk one day who told me that he had been serving writs in my part of the world; in fact, in the same village. I remarked that it was an extraordinary coincidence. He replied, "Yes, we refer to it as the bankrupt belt." The reason is that it is really very bad grade III farming land and, on the whole, people are not very well off.
The provisions of the Bill are actively opposed by 235 local farmers and landowners, 20 independent butchers, a number of market traders, two trade associations, 30 retailers, and 1,640 members of the public who have actually taken the trouble to sign petitions, not to mention the NFU, the CLA, the district council and the town council. Moreover, those who have houses near the cattle market have expressed themselves as being in favour of its continuance.
On the other hand, those promoting the Bill consist of seven shareholders in the Hailsham Cattle Market Company who wish to maximise the value of their investment and the developers to whom they wish to sell. There is no popular support for the Bill. If we are concerned with the will of the people, as I contend we should be, then it should fail at the first fence. I am personally sorry that my noble friend and relation Lord Beaumont of Whitley should have indicated that he may withdraw his Motion. I hope that he will rethink that decision.
I have heard it suggested that referral of the matter to the Select Committee is thought desirable in some quarters because it allows everyone to have their say and, therefore, is overtly democratic. But where is the difference between that and the well-known principle that every man should be allowed his day in court? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that principle; but we are not in court. It is the wrong principle to apply in this instance. We are not here to determine the rights of the parties. Moreover, this is not some kind of planning appeal, or public inquiry. We are hear to listen to the will of the people and they have spoken out conclusively against the Bill. They say that it is something which they most emphatically do not want. Who are we to wish it upon them?
The issue is quite simple: are we charged with looking at the merits of the proposals on an abstract basis and in a judicial manner, as though we were a sort of committee of inquiry, or are we concerned to discover the will of the majority of the people most affected by them? I maintain most strongly that we are here in a democratic and not a judicial capacity, and, indeed, not in a fact finding capacity. I maintain that what the majority of the people want they should have so long as it does no harm to anyone else, and there has been no suggestion of that.
However, in deference to noble Lords who hold a contrary opinion, I shall now go on to consider the objective merits of the Bill, which I am bound to say seem to me to be pretty slender. In the first place, as noble Lords have heard, Hailsham is the only cattle market between Guildford and Ashford. The effect of

1631
closing it down, so far as concerns farmers, is not unlike telling a housewife that she will have to travel four or five times as far to the shops in future than she has been used to travelling. In the context of a housewife, you can easily see that if the shops are more than a certain distance away, her life ceases to be viable. Precisely the same principle operates in farming. You cannot get your jobs done if you have to spend too much time on the road. To put the market out of reach in terms of convenient accessibility is to place an enormous and totally avoidable burden on those concerned. A friend of mine who bred Charollais cattle assures me that people came down from Scotland to buy his beef. However, those are pedigree herds; that is not our concern in East Sussex. We are concerned with the very opposite.
Farming in East Sussex is difficult enough without making it any harder. In our part of the world we are not dealing with a robust industry which can accommodate knocks; we are dealing with what has traditionally been a high effort, low return kind of business, the charm of which depended entirely on the quality of life which it offered. However, under present conditions the rewards have become even lower and the charm has almost disappeared. Many farmers are coming to the conclusion that the game is not worth the candle. In my case all my land is about to come in hand, and that is partly due to disenchantment. The reasons include the following: the frustration of trying to deal with endless paperwork generated by the bureaucrats in Brussels who never use the same form for two years together and whose wide-ranging demands impose an insupportable on-cost both in time and money; the difficulty of continuing to run dairy cattle caused by the reluctance of the transport companies to collect milk in the sort of quantities which small farms produce, and the fact that they have changed to new and enormous tankers which are simply unable to get up some of our lanes; and the extremely important fact that the price of milk is de facto determined by the supermarkets because of their unequal bargaining power and not by the producer which therefore makes small-scale production uneconomic.
This has led many farmers to convert to beef or sheep farming only to be caught out by the BSE epidemic. The Government told the farmers what beasts had to be killed and the slaughterhouses told them how much they were prepared to pay. The result was that the farmer was squeezed in the middle. No mention is made in the promoters' briefing note of the fact that increased sales to abattoirs have to a large extent been involuntary for the reasons I have mentioned. It would be wrong to regard farming as a healthy industry in this part of the world; it would be a great deal nearer the mark to describe it as holding on by the skin of its teeth. One of the most important matters that the Select Committee will have to consider, if the matter is ever placed before it, is alternative land use. If farming ceases to be financially viable for the small farmer, what is the land to be used for? Forestry is a dead duck; set aside can hardly be termed a land use; and amalgamation into larger units is not an option unless you are prepared to
1632
see hedgerows dug out and larger fields created. That brings us face to face with some serious social and environmental issues.
East Sussex is one of the most beautiful of the English counties and I believe it is the most wooded one. But, like all ecologies, the component parts are finely balanced and the Bill envisages taking away one of the main supporting structures. You cannot take away the pendulum without stopping the clock. If farmland is turned into wasteland, planning procedures cannot reverse the process; all they can do is to prevent things happening and the opportunity for that is now.
I turn to the narrower canvas of the town of Hailsham itself. It already has two supermarkets, the Co-op and Somerfield's—some would say three, if you count Spar. The town has a population of only 17,500 and therefore has absolutely no need of a third supermarket. That is a point worth emphasising since, as we all know, the underlying philosophy of the market-place is to undersell competitors, drive them out of business and then hold customers to ransom for the benefit of the directors and shareholders. I can see no long-term benefit to the inhabitants of Hailsham in setting the scene for a test of strength of that sort.
At the moment public consciousness has not woken up to the fact that supermarkets create undesirable environmental and economic change by their very existence. That is especially true in a market town with some pretensions to being a place of beauty. First, their architecture is out of scale with surrounding buildings and totally unmistakable. Secondly, they bring their own atmosphere with them; it is one of bulk trading, entirely incompatible with the small trader ambience of a market town. Thirdly, they require regular supplying by outsize articulated vehicles which nobody with any regard for the agreeableness and amenities of life in a small town would think of allowing within a built-up area. Fourthly, they deal in food which has often travelled vast distances and which discriminates against fresh food produced locally. Fifthly, they harm the businesses of local traders and local suppliers—they harm the first because they can afford to undercut them until they are driven out of business and the second because, as a result of unequal bargaining power, they distort the normal operation of the market by setting the price at the point of distribution instead of the point of supply. We have not yet woken up to the unfriendly consequences of asking superstores to come and live among us. They could teach the cuckoo a trick or two.
Your Lordships may well ask what are thought to be the supposed benefits of closing down the market. The answer, in a nutshell, is money. The shareholders of the Hailsham Cattle Market Company stand to make a great deal of money if the market ceases to function. It is alleged in the preamble to the Bill that the market is uneconomic; but that hardly squares with the facts. The market company itself appears to make £24,000 rent per annum as freeholder, and at leaseholder level those who are petitioning against the Bill have already established that there is no shortage, as the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said, of firms ready to take over the lease as

1633
market operator. If the present shareholders cannot arrange for the economic running of the market, then let them sell to other people who can.
Contrary to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, the obligation is not upon the shareholders to run this market. They are not the people for whom we should feel sorry. The obligation is on the company. If people do not like owning a company which has that obligation, then they should sell the shares to other people who are only too anxious to buy them and continue running the market. There is no validity in the idea that the promoters of the Bill are in some way hard done by as a result of having the obligation to run a market. It is fundamentally unsatisfactory that such an important concern as Hailsham market should he run by people who have financial interest in seeing it decline. The sooner a change in ownership occurs, the better.
I dealt with the financial consequences to the farmer. I should also mention the social dimension, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. A market is a friendly place. You meet your friends there. You "chew the cud". You have a drink—at least you do if the market is in Hailsham. You most certainly do not if it is moved two miles outside to Lower Dicker, where there are no pubs. A drink is important. You enjoy bangers and mash in the refreshment booths. You catch up on prices and are able to see what you are buying and what you could get if you were thinking of selling. Local gossip is exchanged. Old friends meet one another. Problems and complaints are aired. Know-how is exchanged. Crop performance and cattle prices are discussed.
And that is only half the story. The wife is happy. She is taken into town to do her shopping. The local traders are delighted to see her and she meets her friends. Indeed, for some wives it is the only form of outing they get. One farmer wrote to me saying that being a farmer these days is a very lonely occupation because he has had to dispense with his farm-hands. We should not forget the stall-keepers and all those who have subsidiary market activities, such as selling veterinary services, and so on. There is a great deal more to a market than an accountant ever realises. It throbs with life and interest. Yet these are the very things that the Bill will do away with.
As noble Lords will see, I put down an Instruction to the Select Committee, which I gather may find favour with your Lordships. I have done so because rumour reaches me of a proposal to relocate the market at Black Barn Farm, Lower Dicker, a proposal, incidentally, which ignores the fairly substantial sums which have recently been spent on improving the facilities at Hailsham market.
I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about the necessity, if Hailsham market is closed, of ensuring that the promoters of the Bill are financially obliged to have an alternative site up and running, as he put it, before the old one is allowed to close. In outline, what happened in the case of Haywards Heath was that an undertaking was given, and no doubt that undertaking might have been honoured had the Department of Transport not been altering the
1634
roads at the time, which made it impossible to provide access to the new site while the old market was still running. Whether that is a correct summing-up of the situation, I do not know, but it was a total disaster as far as the farmers using Haywards Heath market were concerned and it must not be allowed to happen again.
My second reason for the Instruction relates to the argument put forward by the promoters of the Bill that farmers can just as easily go to Guildford market, which is run by the same people, South East Marts. But for how long? Rumour says that the continuance of that market is not guaranteed: the local authority has its eyes on it for some quite different use. It seems to me that the Select Committee would want to ensure that it is given the full facts because no useful purpose is served by building on sand. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the Instruction.
3 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know that the collective noun for girls is a "giggle", but I am not quite sure of the collective noun for maidens—at least in your Lordships' House. I shall not attempt one this afternoon. But I should like to congratulate two very distinguished Peers on their amusing, powerful and authoritative speeches. I look forward to hearing more of them in the future.
I start by declaring two interests. The first is that Hailsham market is our local market and the estate that my husband runs uses it. In fact, only this Tuesday I went with him to the market where he was selling some barren cows. My second interest is, I suppose, vicarious in that my butcher uses the market. He is one of the best butchers in Sussex. But it occurred to me when I went to the market that with the recent E.coli outbreaks all the emphasis has been on traceability. But from my point of view, traceability is a non-issue. My butcher can tell me exactly on which pastures my Sunday roast was reared. So I have no problems with that. That perhaps is quite a lesson for the country.
We know that the vast majority of towns now are dominated by their supermarkets. But market towns are different. They are dominated by their markets. Cattle markets are situated in the heart of towns, on prime sites, sites which are coveted by supermarkets. It is no secret that they not only want the sites for development, but also want to see an end to the traditional cattle market, because they are the source of meat for independent butchers. Cutting off that source of supply hastens their demise and helps the supermarkets to monopolise the trade.
A few weeks ago Stourminster Newton market closed. That was not just another small market but the largest calf and cow market in Europe. Why? It was in order to make way for a supermarket. South East Marts, the operators of Hailsham market, has no compunction when it comes to asset stripping. We have heard already this afternoon that it sold Haywards Heath market to Sainsbury's. Thame and Guildford markets, I understand, are also under threat. But Hailsham?—Hailsham is protected by us, by Parliament.

1635
As my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton said, it is the free market established by cattle markets that determines the price of meat. Destroying the cattle markets leaves price determination to supermarkets and their closely controlled suppliers. They seek to control both the price of milk and the price of meat. There is no regulator to ensure competition. So that falls to us.
Islington man may deplore subsidies for farmers and consider the countryside to be a public convenience. But there is a small simple step that we can take and that is to maintain competition and ensure that farmers get a fair price for their produce. It does no harm that supermarkets from time to time should have to buy in the open market and to be the highest bidder. Markets are public places, open to anybody's scrutiny. It would be good for the public to see what supermarkets buy and whether their "best British" is in fact the best.
I am not scaremongering. I quote directly from a welfare code dictated by supermarket buyers to our local dairy, a code of welfare which, although admirable in parts and very much welcomed by farmers, conceals the agenda to remove the open market from the farmers' options:
"Whilst the welfare of stock after leaving the farm may not be under the control of the farmer, stock for slaughter may not be sent to a slaughterhouse conforming to relevant UK and EU legislation … evidence must be provided".
The point to note is that the markets are not mentioned. Of course, it is right that animals should be humanely killed and all abattoirs should conform to regulations. But this is another prong in the attack against the free market. That code prohibits a farmer from sending his cattle to market. If he refuses, his milk will be rejected. It requires him to send his cattle to a slaughterhouse, where the supermarkets have control of conditions and price. The supermarket then buys the cattle market to exclude any free option and replaces it with one of its superstores.
Islington man gravitates towards Terence Conran at the Pont de la Tour for his £50 luncheon. He and his smart friends have no empathy with the farmer, who gravitates towards the market with his two quid all-day breakfast. Farmers may be a tiny minority but they produce the majority of food for ordinary people, if not for Terence Conran. Around Hailsham, they maintain that area of astonishing scenic beauty, the Weald of Sussex.
Hailsham market has thrived for 750 years. I am sure that, if it were a stately home, it would be fiercely protected. But because it is an institution, it, like the ways of country life, has no protection against the determined assaults of urban man, except in ancient law, of which we, as parliamentarians, are the guardians.
We are also traditionally the guardians of the countryside. As the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, said, Hailsham sits in the heartland of some of the most beautiful landscape in the British Isles; landscape which is predominantly pasture. The land-use census figures compiled by MAFF confirm that. But it is the quality of the landscape which is so impressive.
1636
Within the catchment area for the Hailsham market is the South Downs environmentally sensitive area; the High Weald, which is designated to be of outstanding natural beauty; the Pevensey Levels, which are of special scientific interest; and the areas of the Low Weald, Wealden Green Sand and the Romney Marshes. It is of course the farmers who are directly responsible for maintaining that heritage. They in turn require a local market in order to carry out their business. They are not going to subject their livestock to a 100-mile round trip in order to maintain their commercial activities, and the temptation to plough will be very great.
The loss of the market therefore threatens not only the way of life of the farming community, but the appearance of the landscape and the ecology in one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. I urge your Lordships to support the instructions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, and my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, for when this Bill goes before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, as I suspect it will, we will want the committee to know the strength of feeling among your Lordships.
Lastly, when the Bill goes before the Select Committee, if it does, costly evidence will have to be put forward by the petitioners—the NFU, the Country Landowners' Association, the district and town councils, local commercial interests, including independent butchers and, of course, the Hailsham Market Action Group—representing a wide range of interests of the local people. Those interests are very strong. They are fighting extremely hard against losing the market. Like the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Wrenbury, and my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, I wish it were possible to spare them that huge expense. It will probably be inevitable, because this is the only way to deal with the Bill. However, I wish them every success in their endeavours and I hope that the battle to maintain the cattle market in Hailsham is handsomely won.
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the strength of feeling that this Private Bill has engendered is well illustrated by the list of distinguished speakers who have put down their names to take part in the Bill's Second Reading. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, how much I enjoyed his speech. I should also like to tell him that I had the great honour of opening Clitheroe's new cattle market. While doing so I was approached by some photographers. "Come and have your photograph taken with me", I said to a group of farmers. "Oh no, we couldn't possibly do that", they said; "We haven't got our teeth in". One nearly always gets the truth from farmers. That cattle market too is in danger.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, with great interest, particularly his remarks about the lack of enthusiasm of the present proprietors. His amendment, attractive though it is, will not—I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury—rid us of this obnoxious Bill; it will merely delay it. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has agreed to withdraw his amendment. I am also extremely grateful that my noble friend

1637
Lord Kenilworth has said that he will accept both the instructions in the names of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton and my noble friend Lord Wrenbury.
My reasons for supporting the instructions are as follows. My noble friend Lord Kenilworth, on behalf of the promoters, virtually maintains that the present market is dying on its feet. I believe that with proper management there is a need for the present market to take place throughout the year, not just on a seasonal basis, for the foreseeable future. As other people have said, Hailsham market is the last live market in Sussex. There is already one supermarket in Hailsham. As a fervent supporter of small shops, my immediate reaction to yet another supermarket in the town is a feeling that its creation would mean leaving blanks where little shops used to be, no doubt including the butcher of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Newton on his very informative speech. I share many of his sentiments. My main contention as regards the Bill concerns the promoters' offers of alternative accommodation. First of all, I ask myself, if they think the present market is not viable, why have they bothered to offer an alternative site? Secondly, I understand, for a variety of very good reasons such as bad buildings, no adequate car parking, no proper washing facilities, no proper safety precautions regulated by MAFF and the local authority, and no proper effluent disposal arrangements, that the Blackbarn Farm site is totally unsuitable.
Furthermore, I understand that the situation with regard to the A.22 is far from satisfactory. A new access would need to be created with permanent hard standing for parking. Planning permission would be required both for the access and the proposed change of use and for any new buildings to be erected on the site. There is no certainty that this could be obtained.
Lastly, at the time of the closure of the market previously operated by South East Marts Limited at Haywards Heath, assurances were given that a new market site would be built at Hickstead, but, despite the closure of Haywards Heath market some years ago, no new market has been built. I really do feel that no further market should be allowed to close in reliance upon an assurance to provide an alternative market site until the alternative site is operating, thereby ensuring the smooth transfer of the market operation as a going concern.
When you get a united front from the farmers who use the present market, the Wealden District Council, the NFU and others, all of whom are against the promoters of the Bill, it is time to take a stand and support their view that the termination of a cattle market facility in the Hailsham area would be damaging to local agriculture, the associated countryside and the rural economy of the area. I very much hope that the Bill will not proceed to the statute book.
3.12 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, having put down my name to speak in the debate and oppose the Second Reading of the Bill and support the Instructions so ably
1638
moved by my noble cousin Lord Monk Bretton and the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, I thought it would be rather impertinent of me to speak without ever having set foot in the Hailsham market. So I set off yesterday to have a look at it. I drove in and out of Hailsham three or four times, being unable to find the market. There were signs for the public library, public conveniences, an amenity centre and the industrial estate. There was even one for something called the Cuckoo Trail. But there was no sign for the market. However, I did in the end find it and spent some 10 minutes walking around and peering into the auctioneer's den. I can well understand why the person in Hailsham responsible for trying to attract tourism into Hailsham does not festoon the A.27 with large signs saying "Ye Olde 13th Century Market Place".
However, we are not here to discuss architectural merit or the fact that a more profitable use for the site could be found. That is self-evident. We are here to try to stop a way of rural life being destroyed, which would happen if this market ceased.
I have no livestock and so have no direct interest in the market. My family estate does, however, own some 5,000 acres of farmland, partly in the Downs near Lewes and partly in the Weald near Mayfield. It is the farms around Mayfield, being in the area covered by the Wealden District Council, which also covers Hailsham, as we heard from my noble friend and neighbour Lord Newton, that I wish to discuss. I want to give the House some idea of the kind of farms that operate in the Weald.
We start at a small farm of 120 acres. The farmer also directly owns another 50 acres. He is a sheep farmer and came to the farm when he was six months old. He is now well into his late 60s and was widowed suddenly earlier this year. When I saw him yesterday he told me that he was still sorely missing his wife, but he had had some fantastic support from the farming community around. Indeed, one farmer telephoned him two days after his wife's death and said, "You're coming to dinner one night per week from now on". I cannot stress how important this rural mutual support is. Some three years ago I went to a meeting representing the Sussex branch of the Country Landowners' Association for a conference chaired by the Bishop of Lewes and Hastings on stress in the countryside. One of the farmers in the same area of Mayfield told us of the stress caused by loneliness experienced by farmers as one by one small farms were sold up and amalgamated. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, touched on that in his speech and the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, also mentioned that fact.
The next farm that we called on is larger, a dairy farm farmed by a man, his wife and two sons, so in that case continuity is assured. He too has been there a long time. He was telling me yesterday that when he first arrived they still burnt charcoal down in the wood below the house. As part of the community spirit, for many years his wife has provided Sussex cream teas in a farm barn for handicapped people who come out in a special coach. That is another example of community in a rural area.
The next is another dairy farm with a son following his father. I had difficulty in finding him yesterday, but the smell of new-mown hay led me to where he was.

1639
I told him why I was coming up to your Lordships' House this afternoon. He said, "I rely absolutely on Hailsham market for my beef enterprise. You must do everything you can to keep the market open". Those are not my words, but those of a young man struggling to make a living in the Weald. I must stress that making a living is all we are talking about because no one makes any money in the Weald. The noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, also confirmed that.
At the top of the hill is another small farm of 67 acres. If I said that this farm was actively farmed I might be exaggerating. The farmer is over 85 years of age and he has been there since 1942. He always greets me standing in his garden pumping water from a well. "Morning, master", he says. He always calls me "master" which is a brilliant ploy as it so disarms me that I forget that I have come to talk about a rent increase. "Just getting some water to flush out the privy", he said. He nods towards the outside lavatory as if suggesting that I might do something about it. If there is anything more idyllic than spending a pleasant, fine afternoon leaning on a five-bar gate at the top of the Rother Valley, listening to an old man reminiscing about the old days, I cannot think of it.
The last farm we shall visit in this sort of walkabout is a farmhouse which does not have any water at all. However, the farmer who operates the farm lives in a cottage nearby. In fact, he delivers water to the house in a kind of bucket on the back of his farm trailer. He told me that he does not do it very often because the occupant of the farmhouse does not like to dilute his whisky too much. This particular farmer who delivers the water farms 50 acres of his own and 50 acres of my land, as his father did, and lives in a thatched cottage which used to belong to my family. Just before the war it was lived in by an author who gave my predecessor a copy of a book with the inscription,
"To Mr. Humphrey Brand from his tenant, the author. [signed] Pamela Travers".
The book is called Mary Poppins. I believe that Mary Poppins country is very much what this delightful Rother Valley is. I thought it important to take noble Lords on this walkabout to show the kind of people who farm in the Weald and how important this market is to them.
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, the Act that the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, has proposed is that the Market Act 1871 be repealed. If he is successful that will inevitably lead to the cessation of the traditional weekly practice of holding cattle markets down at Hailsham, Sussex. In my opinion the demise of this market will be a sad loss to the farming community and I declare an interest as a local farmer. It will lead to a number of undesirable consequences. In general, it would mean the further erosion of traditional rural farming practices and the replacement of local with national and commercial concerns. The potential ensuing loss and damage to the environment in its broadest sense has been eloquently put forward by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
1640
But I would like to deal with the more specific matter of the difficulties of replacing an established and ancient market system, one first established in the 13th century, and the practical effects of such a change in the farming and peripheral trades.
The Act of 1871 was naturally concerned with promoting commercial profitability and improving trading practices, but its emphasis lay, according to the needs of the time, on allowing small farmers and breeders an outlet for their trade and a forum for exchanging goods across a broader spectrum. Its concern was to promote social justice and equity among all the participants. Livestock trading has now of course achieved a national dimension, but both for practical and social reasons this should complement, not replace, the older, local system.
Hailsham market is a centre which brings together a number of interrelated small businesses and country trades. Without the market as a focal point, they may experience serious difficulty in continuing profitably. For example, local butchers who buy direct from the market would not be able to compete with the larger chain stores which buy nationally; hauliers who specialise in local stock movements would find difficulty in competing with established long-distance specialists and local traders would lose the outside trade that is generated by the attractions of market day. It would be iniquitous if the dedicated traditional careers of so many were to be sacrificed to the commercial interests of outside parties.
Local stock farmers would obviously be the worst affected, particularly those with mixed livestock and smaller herds. The loss of a local outlet would mean for many a change in farming practice. It is simply not viable to transport animals considerable distances to market. It has been said that it would cost £14 per head of cattle for transportation to Guildford and £10 per head to the nearest other market at Ashford. Although some cost is involved in getting the same beast to Hailsham market, obviously the other costs would be two or three times greater.
I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that the issue of live animal transport has generated considerable concern in recent years—and rightly so. To risk encouraging the need for the long-distance transportation of often immature farm animals would be detrimental to good farming practice. Alternative ways of marketing livestock have been instituted in recent years, but with only limited success, as they do not answer the needs of the smaller farmers. For store cattle, the sales of which make up a large percentage of the trade of Hailsham market, there is simply no alternative.
The Bill, which seeks to repeal the 1871 Act, is promoted by the Hailsham Cattle Market Company and Carter Commercial Developments Limited. They have produced a document to support their contention that Hailsham cattle market in its current form is not a viable concern and should either be abandoned or replaced on another site with an alternative, modernised market more suited to contemporary needs. The existing site would therefore become available for alternative commercial development and we can only speculate as to who would stand to gain from this opportunity.

1641
Hailsham market is the last live animal market still operating in East or West Sussex, apart from an occasional sheep market held at Rye. These markets often occupied sites situated in the centre of country towns and therefore potentially are of considerable commercial value to developers, as is the case in Hailsham. An alternative use for the land may produce a greater capital value, but this does not in itself mean that a cattle market is not a viable use for the land. The townspeople and local farmers believe that there is a need for a local market and that it encourages business, while the local residents do not object to its continuation. The market would benefit from improved management and promotion and this would seem to remain a realistic and desirable option—preferable to the disruption and inconvenience concomitant on its demise. The retention of the market is consistent with present-day government policies for the environment, transport and economy and with the original spirit of the Act of 1871. I hope that that Act remains in force.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, this is a most unwelcome Bill not only because we have to be here to discuss it on a Friday afternoon, but because it involves relieving the present market operator at Hailsham of the responsibility of running a cattle auction there, with the subsequent loss of such a facility to a very large number of farmers. It seems that redevelopment as a supermarket site is involved. I have nothing against supermarkets—in fact, I rather enjoy shopping in them—but a recent quick visit to Hailsham revealed that there are already two supermarkets in the town and that the arrival of a third would do nothing to enhance the desirability of Hailsham as a shopping centre. We have heard that this is the reason why the local authorities are petitioning against the Bill.
One of my interests is railways. The redevelopment of supposedly surplus railway land into supermarkets is becoming highly controversial, especially with regard to need. It is the policy of the new Government to encourage the use of this mode of transport. My farming experience over many of my earlier years was gained around what has now become Milton Keynes. I managed to escape from there early enough to be able to farm on my own behalf about as far north in Buckinghamshire as I could get. Indeed, half the farm lay in Northamptonshire.
In my time I kept many different kinds of livestock, and marketing them to the best advantage was a problem. It soon became apparent that the local auction mart was the best solution. As Northampton was but eight miles away it was there that I went. It should be remembered that a farmer not only has to sell but to buy. This covers not only livestock but an enormous variety of other things. Incidentally, a farmer also must be able to operate all kinds of extremely complicated mechanical equipment safely and keep it properly maintained, and he has to apply and handle many different types of chemicals, some quite hazardous. It is a bit of a tall order, which is perhaps why farmers are not very well understood by the rest of society.
1642
Farmers are also the custodians of the countryside and as such their position in society must be safeguarded. In that connection I associate myself with similar remarks made by other noble Lords. The local cattle market provides a place where one can not only buy and sell livestock in complete confidence, and get paid, but can trade arable crops and in many cases machinery and normally find someone to help with and discuss almost anything, socially or otherwise.
The facility at Northampton has succumbed to redevelopment even—it must be said—in part to a supermarket. But in this case a 13-acre industrial site has been purchased outside the town and properly equipped as a modern livestock market, with associated overnight truck stop facilities for the transport fraternity. There is a licensed cafe and excellent access just off the eastern bypass road. All of that cost the best part of £1⅓ million. Much of the funding has come from local agricultural interests, including auctioneers and local livestock traders. It seems strange that much the same kind of thing has not or will not happen in Sussex.
There is a lot of competition around Northampton. Banbury is not too far away. There is a good market at Rugby and there are others in the vicinity. In Sussex there appears to be no such competition. Looking at the Order Paper, unbelievably it appears that there is some risk to Guildford. The market operators do not appear to be interested. They are not serving the agricultural community or the town of Hailsham as they should, and for that I do not believe that the Bill should proceed in its present form.
During my time spent farming in North Bucks one of my neighbours, who derived much of his income from livestock trading, was a regular attender at Haywards Heath. Cattle that he purchased there would be passed on to other graziers, kept at home or possibly sold on in local markets such as Northampton. Another family who farmed in the area were, and still are, heavily involved in this activity, sourcing cattle in Guildford and Salisbury. Until its closure Haywards Heath was another source. Eventually this firm takes some of the cattle traded at Hailsham store market, although it does not attend personally. This demonstrates that there is a ready market for cattle raised in Sussex and the south of England to be further grazed and finished on the perhaps traditionally more fertile pastures of the Midlands.
As an occasional customer of these traders I may well have had on my farm stock born and bred in Sussex, and they have never given me any cause for concern. Cattle often benefit from a change of scene, and the removal of a point of sale under the circumstances of this Bill must be highly undesirable.
The one good thing about this debate is that it enables us to take a hard look at how the loss of similar cattle markets to various forms of development has affected the agricultural scene in general. This particular site is enshrined in parliamentary legislation, but many are in the hands of local authorities which have found themselves charged with providing a place where the very necessary business of agricultural trade can take place. For various reasons—I have already spoken of

1643
one—many authorities have found it necessary to redevelop their market sites and move the facility out of the town. Why cannot the same thing take place here?
If the Bill receives a Second Reading this afternoon, and I hope that it will, it will go before a Select Committee, to which, it seems, adequate instruction will be given. Select Committees of the House have an excellent reputation for deliberating on knotty problems. I have had the privilege of serving on two of them. The petitioners can rest assured that their concerns will be well addressed. So I hope that we give the Bill a Second Reading so that the Select Committee, having been well instructed by other noble Lords, can ensure that in no way will the Bill survive in its present form.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kenilworth on bringing forward the Bill. He has displayed great courage in doing so and has proved to be an admirable devil's advocate in promoting what most other speakers and I feel is a Bill which should not have been brought forward. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, was fair in his assessments. He weighed matters weightily in one hand, then the other, and came down firmly in the middle. Freed of the responsibilities of government, I shall not follow along that course. On the other hand, I shall not be tempted into too great a discussion on the individual merits of the Bill.
The first question we have is whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading or whether it should be delayed for six months. Had the Bill remained in the form it was when it first came before us, and with the advocacy that then accompanied it, I have no doubt that we should have refused it a Second Reading. I know that I shall be in trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying this, but it is not often that we do that although I voted for the voting down, as it were, of the Usk Bay Barrage Bill where at the end there was an equality of votes.
It is a simple matter. If the principle of the Bill is so objectionable that it should not be allowed to waste our time or the objectors' money, we have a duty to vote it down on Second Reading, and for that to be an end to it. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Kenilworth and everything else said today, I believe that the promoters have made sufficient motion to allow the matter to be discussed with enough good sense and clarity, and with the possibility of compromise, that we should let it go forward to the next stage. But it should be on the clear understanding that what the Bill's promoters are asking for is a concession from us.
The promoters do not have an asset; they have an obligation to run a market. They should not regard the money which might come from the site as theirs to do what they want with, subject to shelling out a few pennies to people who might be affected by the
1644
Bill. This is a market. They have to show that it should no longer be run, and that the the consequences of that, which, in principle, would be a large sum of money, will be fairly and equitably dealt with. That is what I hope will be considered by the committee. That is the judgment that we trust to it.
The promoters have, as has been said, offered an alternative market site. My noble kinsman Lord Newton, in what was another excellent maiden speech, made clear why it was unacceptable to have a market at Dicker, although dicker would be an acceptable thing to do at a market. I hope that that is a view and an understanding that will be shared by the committee. We can leave it to the committee with added confidence, because, should that process go wrong and it returns a verdict so at odds with the evidence that it has received that it is objectionable to us, we of course retain the right to reject the Bill on Third Reading. All things considered, we should support the general sense of the House today, give the Bill its Second Reading, subject to the Instructions which have been proposed, and see what proceeds thereafter.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as the Chairman of Committees is temporarily indisposed it has been suggested that I should stand in his place to say the few words that he would have spoken at this stage in the debate. It is not his responsibility nor is it mine to take part in discussions on the merits of the Bill. However, as a Motion has been tabled which would reject the Bill on Second Reading, it is proper that I should intervene briefly to remind the House—not that it necessarily needs reminding—about some of the procedural implications of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, even though he has indicated his intention to withdraw it.
There is no doubt that the House can reject a Private Bill on Second Reading, although it has not done so since 1937. That is probably a longer time than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was thinking of—in fact, it is probably longer than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas! I am sure that the House will want to bear in mind the effect of giving a Private Bill a Second Reading. In contrast with the Second Reading of a Public Bill, the Second Reading of a Private Bill does not amount to the House giving its approval of its general principle. From what we have heard today, noble Lords will be grateful for that reassurance.
If the House agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill the effect would simply be to agree that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee. It is the Select Committee to which the Bill is committed which decides on its general principle. The Select Committee has the right to reject the Bill if it sees fit. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is correct in saying that after it is accepted by the Select Committee, if it is, it will come back to this House for further consideration.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Kenilworth: My Lords, in closing the debate, I wish to emphasise the fact that in deciding upon the merits of the Bill a great deal of detail remains to be discussed. As the promoters are approaching the matter in a spirit of compromise, the decision is likely to be constructive.
I thank all noble Lords for having participated in the debate, which proved to be extremely interesting if somewhat heated. I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to proceed to a Select Committee, as is the custom of this House in relation to a Private Bill.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall not attempt to say anything about the merits of the Bill because the debate speaks for itself. I suspect that the Hansard record will be a fine document for those who want to talk about the countryside in the future.
Before asking your Lordships' permission to withdraw my amendment, I must touch upon one point. The noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, asked me to look again at whether I should do so. I have enormous sympathy with his plea that the Bill should be "strangled at birth", to quote Sir Cyril Smith in another context. I know that other noble Lords have, too. However, we have taken advice and believe that the point is not how quickly but how thoroughly it should be strangled. It is in order to enable a thorough strangling job to be done that I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should consider:

(a) the relationship between the market company and Carter Commercial Developments, the joint promoters of the Bill, and South East Marts Limited, including any contractual arrangements between the parties and any third parties relating to the property of the market;

(b) the possibility of other bodies taking over the operation of the market; and

(c) what alternative arrangements could be made for the establishment and maintenance of a cattle market in the Hailsham area, prior to the closure of the existing market, which would be both viable and sufficient for the needs of the local farming community and other market users.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Wrenbury: My Lords, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should consider the circumstances in which other markets managed by South East Marts Limited have been closed and the extent to which provision was made for their replacement, and the likelihood of the closure of the market at Guildford.—(Lord Wrenbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Officers Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before four o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Peace Policies
  Northern Ireland Peace Policies
  Conservation Areas: Demolition Consent
  Conservation Areas: Demolition Consent
  >"Family": Definition
  >"Family": Definition
  Freedom of Information Legislation
  Freedom of Information Legislation
  Cabinet Responsibility and Policy Announcements
  Cabinet Responsibility and Policy Announcements
  Prescription Charge Comparisons
  Prescription Charge Comparisons
  Electronic Smog
  Electronic Smog
  Anti-Smoking Summit
  Anti-Smoking Summit
  Cattle Tracing: Computerised System Development
  Cattle Tracing: Computerised System Development
  BSE: Report
  BSE: Report
  Agriculture Council, 22–23 July
  Agriculture Council, 22–23 July
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee: Members' Interests
  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee: Members' Interests
  Hong Kong Government: Expatriate Officials
  Hong Kong Government: Expatriate Officials
  Hong Kong Police: Expatriate Officers
  Hong Kong Police: Expatriate Officers
  EU Structural and Cohesion Funds Allocations
  EU Structural and Cohesion Funds Allocations